[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3457-S3516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                 Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to authorize 
States to recognize each other's concealed weapons laws and exempt 
qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws 
prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation is 
designed to support the rights of States and to facilitate the right of 
law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement officers to protect 
themselves, their families, and their property. I am pleased to be 
joined by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch as an 
original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The language of this bill is based on my bill, S. 837, in the 105th 
Congress and is similar to a provision in S. 3, the Omnibus Crime 
Control Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hatch. In light of the 
importance of this provision to law-abiding gunowners and law 
enforcement officers, I am introducing this freestanding bill today for 
the Senate's consideration and prompt action.
  This bill allows States to enter into agreements, known as 
``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons laws of those States 
included in the compacts. This is not a Federal mandate; it is strictly 
voluntary for those States interested in this approach. States would 
also be allowed to include provisions which best meet their needs, such 
as special provisions for law enforcement personnel.
  This legislation would allow anyone possessing a valid permit to 
carry a concealed firearm in their respective State to also carry it in 
another State, provided that the States have entered into a compact 
agreement which recognizes the host State's right-to-carry laws. This 
is needed if you want to protect the security individuals enjoy in 
their own State when they travel or simply cross State lines to avoid a 
crazy quilt of differing laws.
  Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in 
those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in 
this body have always strived to protect the interests of States and 
communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their 
affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every 
day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill 
would allow States to decide for themselves.
  Specifically, the bill allows that the law of each State govern 
conduct within that State where the State has a right-to-carry statute, 
and States determine through a compact agreement which out-of-State 
right-to-carry statute will be recognized.
  To date, 31 States have passed legislation making it legal to carry 
concealed weapons. These State laws enable citizens of those States to 
exercise their right to protect themselves, their families, and their 
property.
  The second major provision of this bill would allow qualified current 
and former law enforcement officers who are carrying appropriate 
written identification of that status to be exempt from State laws that 
prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. This provision sets forth a 
checklist of stringent criteria that law enforcement officers must meet 
in order to qualify for this exemption status. Exempting qualified 
current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting 
the carrying of concealed weapons, I believe, would add additional 
forces to our law enforcement community in our unwavering fight against 
crime.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 727

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Protection 
     Act of 1999''.

[[Page S3458]]

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS 
                   PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified 
       current and former law enforcement officers

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law 
     of any State or any political subdivision of a State, an 
     individual may carry a concealed firearm if that individual 
     is--
       ``(1) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified 
     former law enforcement officer; and
       ``(2) carrying appropriate written identification.
       ``(b) Effect on Other Laws.--
       ``(1) Common carriers.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to exempt from section 46505(B)(1) of title 49--
       ``(A) a qualified law enforcement officer who does not meet 
     the requirements of section 46505(D) of title 49; or
       ``(B) a qualified former law enforcement officer.
       ``(2) Federal laws.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to supersede or limit any Federal law or regulation 
     prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm on any 
     Federal property, installation, building, base, or park.
       ``(3) State laws.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(A) grant rights to carry a concealed firearm that are 
     broader than the rights granted under this section;
       ``(B) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(C) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Appropriate written identification.--The term 
     `appropriate written identification' means, with respect to 
     an individual, a document that--
       ``(i) was issued to the individual by the public agency 
     with which the individual serves or served as a qualified law 
     enforcement officer; and
       ``(ii) identifies the holder of the document as a current 
     or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency.
       ``(B) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term 
     `qualified law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
       ``(i) is presently authorized by law to engage in or 
     supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any 
     violation of criminal law;
       ``(ii) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in 
     the course of duty;
       ``(iii) meets any requirements established by the agency 
     with respect to firearms; and
       ``(iv) is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the 
     agency that prevents the carrying of a firearm.
       ``(C) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term 
     `qualified former law enforcement officer' means, an 
     individual who is--
       ``(i) retired from service with a public agency, other than 
     for reasons of mental disability;
       ``(ii) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified 
     law enforcement officer with that public agency;
       ``(iii) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the 
     retirement plan of the agency;
       ``(iv) was not separated from service with a public agency 
     due to a disciplinary action by the agency that prevented the 
     carrying of a firearm;
       ``(v) meets the requirements established by the State in 
     which the individual resides with respect to--

       ``(I) training in the use of firearms; and
       ``(II) carrying a concealed weapon; and

       ``(vi) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
     firearm.
       ``(D) Firearm.--The term `firearm' means, any firearm that 
     has, or of which any component has, traveled in interstate or 
     foreign commerce.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 926A the following:

``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former 
              law enforcement officers.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INTERSTATE COMPACTS.

       (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to any 2 
     or more States--
       (1) to enter into compacts or agreements for cooperative 
     effort in enabling individuals to carry concealed weapons as 
     dictated by laws of the State within which the owner of the 
     weapon resides and is authorized to carry a concealed weapon; 
     and
       (2) to establish agencies or guidelines as they may 
     determine to be appropriate for making effective such 
     agreements and compacts.
       (b) Reservation of Rights.--The right to alter, amend, or 
     repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved by Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 728. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving 
stolen firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many crimes in our country are being 
committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in 
a number of recent studies and news reports. Therefore, today I am 
introducing the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 to increase 
the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws.
  Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each 
year. As of March 1995 there were over 2 million reports in the stolen 
gun file of the FBI's National Crime Information Center including 7,700 
reports of stolen machine guns and submachine guns. In a 9 year period 
between 1985 and 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 
274,000 reports of stolen guns.
  Studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
note that felons steal firearms to avoid background checks. A 1991 
Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State prison inmates notes that 
almost 10 percent had stolen a handgun, and over 10 percent of all 
inmates had traded or sold a stolen firearm.
  This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice 
Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50 
percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang 
members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun.
  In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation 
receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this month, 
the Bureau has a total of 36,000 firearms on its unrecovered firearms 
list. It is estimated that one-third of these firearms are categorized 
as handguns.

  All these studies and statistics show the extent of the problem of 
stolen guns. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will increase 
the maximum prison sentences for violation of existing stolen gun laws.
  Specifically, my bill increases the maximum penalty for violating 
four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, 
it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen 
ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, 
store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen 
ammunition.
  The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a 
maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. My bill increases 
the maximum prison sentence to 15 years.
  The third statutory provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm 
from a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. For violating this 
provision, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to a 
maximum 15 years under by bill.
  And the fourth provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from any 
person, including a licensed firearm collector, with a maximum penalty 
of 10 years imprisonment. As with the other three provisions, my bill 
increases this maximum penalty to 15 years.
  In addition to these amendments to title 18 of the U.S. Code, the 
bill I introduce today directs the United States Sentencing Commission 
to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these 
firearms offenses.
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding 
gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the 
illegal use of firearms.
  The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 will send a strong 
signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I 
urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 728

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. STOLEN FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and

[[Page S3459]]

       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of 
     section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 15 years, or both.'';
       (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10 years'' and 
     inserting ``15 years''; and
       (3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10 years'' and 
     inserting ``15 years''.
       (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski,  Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Hagel and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 729. A bill to ensure that Congress and the public have the right 
to participate in the declaration of national monuments on federal 
land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         THE NATIONAL MONUMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
ensures the public will have a say in the management of our public 
lands. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski, Lott, Stevens, Burns, 
Gordon Smith, Crapo, Shelby, Hagel, and Bennett are joining me as 
original cosponsors.
  After President Clinton's proclamation of four years ago, declaring 
nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument, I 
introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1999. That bill would have 
required that the public and the Congress be included before a national 
monument could be established in Idaho. When I introduced that bill, I 
was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same 
protection for their state. This bill, The National Monument Public 
Participation Act, will provide that protection to all states.
  The National Monument Public Participation Act amends the Antiquities 
Act to require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to 
provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to the designation 
of a national monument. It establishes procedures to give the public 
and local, State, and federal governments adequate notice and 
opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the formulation of plans 
for the declaration of national monuments on public lands.
  Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the unilateral 
authority to create a national monument where none existed before. In 
fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands 
aside. It is important to note that with very few exceptions, these 
declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, which recognized the need for public involvement in 
such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions 
are made.
  The most recent use of the Antiquities Act came on September 18, 
1996, with Presidential Proclamation 6920, Establishment of the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Without including Utah's 
Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, 
county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off-
limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. What the 
President did in Utah, without public input, could also be done in 
Idaho or any other States where the federal government has a presence. 
That must not be allowed to happen.
  My state of Idaho is 63 percent federal lands. Within Idaho's 
boundaries, we have one National Historic Park, one National Reserve, 
two National Recreation Areas, and five Wilderness Areas, just to name 
the major federally designated natural resource areas. This amounts to 
approximately 4.8 million acres, or to put things in perspective, the 
size of the state of New Jersey. Each of these designations has had 
public involvement and consent of Congress before being designated. As 
you can tell, the public process has worked in the past, in my state, 
and I believe it will continue to work in the future.
  In Idaho, each of these National designations generated concerns 
among those affected by the designation, but with the public process, 
we were able to work through most of the concerns before the 
designation was made. Individuals who would be affected by the National 
designation had time to prepare, but Utah was not as fortunate. With 
the overnight designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument, the local communities, and the State and federal agencies 
were left to pick up the pieces and work out all the ``details.''
  The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people 
across America.We all want to preserve what is best in our States, and 
I understand and support the need to protect valuable resources. That 
is why this bill will not, in any way, affect the ability of the 
federal government to make emergency withdrawals under the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). If an area is truly worthy 
of a National Monument designation, Congress will make that designation 
during the time frame provided in FLPMA.
  Our public lands are a national asset that we all treasure and enjoy. 
Westerners are especially proud of their public lands and have a stake 
in the management of these lands, but people everywhere also understand 
that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their 
public lands.
  In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such 
as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have 
all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon 
kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked 
off our public lands.
  Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and 
inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to 
unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't 
work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common 
sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to 
put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great 
natural resources.
  In my view, the President's actions in Utah were beyond the pale, and 
for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate I am 
introducing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 729

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Monument Public 
     Participation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Congress and the 
     public have the right and opportunity to participate in 
     decisions to declare national monuments on Federal land.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN 
                   DECLARATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       The Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of American 
     antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the 
     ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN NATIONAL MONUMENT 
                   DECLARATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate regulations that 
     establish procedures to ensure that Federal, State, and local 
     governments and the public have the right to participate in 
     the formulation of plans relating to the declaration of a 
     national monument on Federal land on or after the date of 
     enactment of this section, including procedures--
       ``(1) to provide the public with adequate notice and 
     opportunity to comment on and participate in the declaration 
     of a national monument on Federal land; and
       ``(2) for public hearings, when appropriate, on the 
     declaration of a national monument on Federal land.
       ``(b) Other Duties.--Prior to making any recommendations 
     for declaration of a national monument in an area, the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall--
       ``(1) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, compliance 
     with all applicable Federal land management and environmental 
     laws, including the completion of a programmatic 
     environmental impact statement under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       ``(2) cause mineral surveys to be conducted by the 
     Geological Survey to determine the mineral values, if any, 
     that may be present in the area;
       ``(3) cause an assessment of the surface resource values of 
     the land to be completed and made available by the 
     appropriate agencies;
       ``(4) identify all existing rights held on Federal land 
     contained within the area by type and acreage; and
       ``(5) identify all State and private land contained within 
     the area.

[[Page S3460]]

       ``(c) Recommendations.--On completion of the reviews and 
     mineral surveys required under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit 
     to the President recommendations as to whether any area on 
     Federal land warrants declaration as a national monument.
       ``(d) Federal Action.--Any study or recommendation under 
     this section shall be considered a federal action for 
     purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the receipt of 
     a recommendation under subsection (c), the President shall--
       ``(1) advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives of the President's 
     recommendation with respect to whether each area evaluated 
     should be declared a national monument; and
       ``(2) provide a map and description of the boundaries of 
     each area evaluated for declaration to the President of the 
     Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       ``(f) Declaration After Effective Date.--A recommendation 
     of the President for declaration of a national monument that 
     is made after the effective date of this section shall become 
     effective only if the declaration is approved by Act of 
     Congress.''.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the 
National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. This legislation 
puts the ``Public'' back into public land management and the 
``Environment'' back into environmental protection.
  Passage of this Act will insure that all the gains we have made over 
the past quarter century in creating an open participatory government 
which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are 
protected.
  For those of you who thought those battles were fought and ``won'' 
with the passage of National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, the 
Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, and the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976, I have bad news. There is one last battle to be 
fought.
  Standing in this very Chamber on January 30, 1975, Senator Henry M. 
``Scoop'' Jackson spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public 
lands. He said:

       The public lands of the United States have always provided 
     the arena in which we American's have struggled to fulfill 
     our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and 
     escape are still being acted out on these far flung lands. 
     These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which 
     they foster are a part of our national destiny. They belong 
     to all Americans.

  Amazingly, there exists today ``legal'' authorities by which the 
President, without public process or Congressional approval and without 
any environmental review, can create vast special management units. 
Special management units which can affect how millions of acres of our 
public lands are managed, what people can do on these lands, and what 
the future will be for surrounding communities.
  This is a powerful trust to bestow upon anyone--even a President.
  On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find 
themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says: ``Trust 
us we're from the federal government, and we know what's best for 
you''. On that day, standing in the State of Arizona, the President 
invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create a 1.7 million acre Nation 
Monument in Southern Utah. By using this antiquated law the President 
was able to avoid this nation's environmental laws and ignore public 
participation laws. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public 
input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past 
quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political 
expediency.
  What happened in Utah is but the latest example of a small cadre of 
Administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public 
lands should be used. It is a classic example of a backroom deal, 
catering to special interests at the expense of the public. It is by no 
means the only one.
  As a Senator from Alaska, I have a great deal of personal experience 
in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter used this law to create 
``17'' National Monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 millions 
acres of land. This was followed in short order by this Secretary of 
the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. 
All this land was withdrawn from multiple uses without any input from 
the people of Alaska, the public, or the Congress of the United States. 
All this occurred while Congress was considering legislation affecting 
these lands, while Congress was conducting workshops throughout Alaska 
and holding hearings in Washington, DC to involve the public.
  With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head 
like the sword of Damocles, we were forced to cut the best deal we 
could. Twenty years later the people of my state are still struggling 
to cope with the weight of these decisions. President Carter cut his 
deal for his special interests to avoid the public debate on 
legislation, just as President Clinton did with the Grand Staircase/
Escalante.
  I would not be here this afternoon if the public, and Congress were 
not systematically being denied a voice in the creation of National 
Monuments. I would not be here if environmental procedures were being 
followed. But the people of this nation are being denied the 
opportunity to speak, Congress is being denied its opportunity to 
participate, and environmental procedure are being ignored. The only 
voice we hear is that of the President. Without bothering to ask what 
we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the 
country that he knew better than they what was best for them.
  It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those 
kinds of unilateral public land use decisions for the American public. 
Since passage of the Forest Service Organic Act and the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act in 1976 we have had a rock hard system of law 
on how public land use decisions are to be made. Embodied within these 
laws are public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present 
that action to the public, the public debates the issue, bad decisions 
can be appealed, the courts resolve disputes, and finally the 
management unit is created. Where was this public participation in the 
special use designation of 1.7 million acres of federal land in 
southern Utah?
  Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 
activities which effect the environment are subject to strict 
environmental reviews. Does anyone believe there is no environmental 
threat posed by the creation of a national monument?
  The economic and social consequences of this decision will have 
enormous and irrevocable impacts not only on the land immediately 
affected, but on surrounding lands and communities. All these effects 
on the human environment would have been evaluated under the land 
management statutes and the environmental procedural review. Where is 
the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action?
  The Constitutions explicitly provides that ``The Congress shall have 
the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United 
States.'' The creation of specialized public use designations such as 
National Parks and Wilderness Areas are debated within the Halls of 
Congress. These Debates provide for the financial and legal 
responsibilities which come with the creation of special management 
units. Where are the proceedings from those debates?
  They simply do not exist because, in the heat of political 
expediency, the Administration determined that public process, 
environmental analyses, and Congressional deliberations were a waste of 
time.
  Mr. President, either you believe in public process or you do not, 
you can't have it both ways. We can no longer trust the Administration 
to involve the public in major land use decisions and we can no longer 
tolerate the blanket evasion of the laws designed to protect our 
natural resources. The time has come for Congress to reassert its 
Constitutional responsibility under Article IV.
  The legislation which Senator Craig and I offer today will require 
that any future designations of National Monuments to follow the public 
participation principals laid down in law over the past 25 years.
  No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, no special 
coverage on Good Morning America, just good old fashion public land 
management process.
  Before these special land management units can be created, our 
legislation will require that agencies gather and analyze resource data 
affected by these land use decisions; that full public participation in 
the designation of

[[Page S3461]]

the units takes place (with all appeal rights protected); that there be 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and that 
Congress review and approve final designation. No longer will an 
administration be able to side-step public participation and 
environmental reviews to further its political agenda and cater to 
special interest.
  Nobody--not even the President--should be above the law. The National 
Monument Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a 
joint responsibility of the public through the Congress, that they 
elect. This legislation reasserts the Constitutional role of the 
Congress in public land decisions.
  I do not question the need for National Monuments. If the national 
benefit can be demonstrated, then by all means a national monument 
should be created. But, if they are to serve the common good, they must 
be created under the same system of land management law that has 
managed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years and pursuant 
to the document that has governed this Nation for the past 225 years.
  There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and 
the lands they hold in common ownership. No one-regardless of high 
station or political influence--has the right to impose his will over 
the means by which the destiny of those land is decided.
  This legislation re-establishes that bond.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my 
colleagues in introducing The National Monument Participation Act of 
1999. This bill would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to clearly 
establish the roles for public participation and Congressional 
involvement in declaring national monuments on federal lands. This bill 
requires specific processes and requirements to ensure that the public, 
local, state, and Federal government are both informed and involved in 
the formulation of any plans to declare national monuments on federal 
lands.
  It requires that the public be actively involved in the formulation 
of any plans to declare a national monument. Considering the recent 
controversy surrounding the designation of monuments with the stroke of 
a pen rather than through open debate and assessment, it only makes 
sense to include the public in any future designation decisions. I 
remind my colleagues and the administration that we are managing our 
land resources for the people. This bill suggests that perhaps we 
should listen to them before drastically changing the management of our 
land resources.
  Additionally, the legislation requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture perform an assessment of 
current land uses on the land proposed for designation. This is 
necessary to provide information about the impact of declaring any 
national monument before recommendations are made by the President. It 
makes absolutely no sense to pursue designation changes without 
learning what is at stake. What mineral interests are affected? Does it 
change traditional grazing uses? These are questions that will have to 
be answered before new monuments are designated.
  The legislation also requires that we look at the impact a monument 
would have on state or private land holdings. Once again, common sense 
is needed. If the federal designation change affects state an private 
lands, Congress must be informed of these impacts before a decision is 
finally reached. It is irresponsible to make decisions without the 
proper information.
  Finally, this legislation would require the President to submit his 
decision on these recommendations to the Congress for final review and 
approval. If we are going to change our designations and impact local 
communities, Congress must weigh in on the decision.
  Public involvement in federal decision making is critical today to 
ensure that local citizens are involved in the decision changing how 
federal lands near their homes are used. This bill will mandate broader 
involvement to ensure the public and the legislative branch have an 
opportunity to participate in any plans to establish new national 
monuments on federal lands. In addition, this ensures the information 
is available for the public and ourselves to understand the impacts of 
any proposed declaration and make an informed decision.
  Overall, I believe this bill establishes a clear set of roles and 
responsibilities for all parties involved in the declaration of new 
national monuments on federal lands to ensure that such decisions are 
made in a manner that respects the rights of both local communities and 
the interests of the nation as a whole. I encourage my colleagues to 
carefully examine this legislation and lend their support to its 
ultimate passage.
 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-
sponsor of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. I 
commend my colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing forward this 
important measure and am pleased to offer it my support.
  The National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 will establish 
guidelines for public and local, State, and federal government 
involvement in the designation and planning of national monuments. 
Currently, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the 
authority to proclaim a national monument and determine its composition 
and scope without any prior or subsequent public involvement. Although 
this authority has rarely been invoked since the implementation of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which mandates public 
comment periods prior to federal land management actions, the recent 
exercise of this authority by the current Administration has called 
attention to the need to revise the Antiquities Act. These proposed 
amendments to the Antiquities Act reflect the contemporary recognition 
that public involvement in federal land management decisions is both 
proper and beneficial.
  This measure, beyond requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture to include the public and the different levels of 
government in the decision to designate and form national monuments, 
also directs the Secretaries to research and make available information 
about the land to be designated. Factors such as the mineral values 
present and identification of existing rights held on federal lands 
within the area to be designated have an obvious bearing on the 
decision of whether designation is appropriate and, if it is, how it 
should be structured. An understanding of these factors should be a 
part of an inclusive decision-making process and, hence, it is 
appropriate to require that they be explored and publicly shared prior 
to the designation of a national monument.
  The strongest protection, however, that the National Monument Public 
Participation Act of 1999 provides for public oversight of national 
monument designation is the requirement that any recommendation of the 
President for declaration of land as a national monument shall become 
effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. By subjecting 
proposals for monument designations to congressional approval, this Act 
ensures that when national monuments are established they are truly 
supported, both nationally and by local communities. This Act provides 
an important level of protection for public involvement in land use 
issues and I am pleased to offer it my support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 730. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
promulgate fire safety standards for cigarettes, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    fire safe cigarette act of 1999

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the First Safe 
Cigarette Act of 1999. This legislation would solve a serious fire 
safety problem, namely, fires that are caused by a carelessly discarded 
cigarette.
  The statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are truly startling. 
In 1996 there were 169,500 cigarette-related first that resulted in 
1,181 deaths, 2,931 injuries and $452 million in property damage. 
According to the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every 
four fire deaths in the United States in 1996 was attributed to tobacco 
products.
  In my state of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too 
many senseless tragedies. In 1997, alone, there were more than 1,700 
cigarette-related fires, of which more than 900

[[Page S3462]]

were in people's homes. These fires led to 109 injuries and 8 deaths. 
Also in 1997, smoking-related fires in Illinois led to property loss of 
more than $10.4 million. According to statistics from the U.S. Fire 
Administration, half of the known residential fire deaths in Illinois 
from 1993 to 1995 were from arson and careless smoking. During that 
three-year period, 69 deaths in Illinois were attributed to careless 
smoking.
  A Technical Study Group (TSG) was created by the Federal Cigarette 
Safety Act in 1984 to investigate the technological and commercial 
feasibility of creating a self-extinguishing cigarette. This group was 
made up of representatives of government agencies, the cigarette 
industry, the furniture industry, public health organizations and fire 
safety organizations. The TSG produced two reports that concluded that 
it is technically feasible to reduce the ignition propensity of 
cigarettes.
  The manufacture of less fire-prone cigarettes may require some 
advances in cigarette design and manufacturing technology, but the 
cigarette companies have demonstrated their capability to make 
cigarettes of reduced ignition propensity with no increase in tar, 
nicotine or carbon monoxide in the smoke. For example, six current 
commercial cigarettes have been tested which already have reduced 
ignition propensity. The technology is in place now to begin developing 
a performance standard for less fire prone cigarettes. Furthermore, the 
overall impact on other aspects of the United States society and 
economy will be minimal. Thus, it may be possible to solve this problem 
at costs that are much less than the potential benefits, which are 
saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage.
  The Fire Safe Cigarette Act would give the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission the authority to promulgate a fire safety standard for 
cigarettes. Eighteen months after the legislation is enacted, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission would issue a rule creating a safety 
standard for cigarettes. Thirty months after the legislation is 
enacted, the standards would become effective for the manufacture and 
importation of cigarettes.
  Here are some examples of changes that could be made to cigarettes 
that would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition: reduced 
circumference or thinner cigarettes, making the paper less porous, 
changing the density of the tobacco in cigarettes, and eliminating or 
reducing the citrate added to the cigarette paper. Also, there is 
limited evidence suggesting that the presence of a filter may reduce 
ignition propensity. Again, there are cigarettes on the market right 
now that show some of these characteristics and are less likely to 
smolder and cause fires.
  While the number of people killed each year by fires is dropping 
because of safety improvements and other factors, too many Americans 
are dying because of a product that could be less likely to catch fire 
if simple changes were made. I strongly believe that this issue demands 
immediate and swift action in order to prevent further deaths and 
injuries.
  An industry that can afford to spend more than $4 billion in 
advertising every year cannot claim it would be too expensive to make 
these changes. It is not unreasonable to ask these companies to make 
their products less likely to burn down a house.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 730

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Safe 
     Cigarette Act of 1999''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire 
     deaths in the United States,
       (2) in 1996 cigarette ignited fires caused--
       (A) 1,083 deaths;
       (B) 2,809 civilian injuries; and
       (C) $420,000,000 in property damage;
       (3) each year, more than 100 children are killed from 
     cigarette-related fires;
       (4) the technical work necessary to achieve a cigarette 
     fire safety standard has been accomplished under the 
     Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note) and the 
     Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note);
       (5) it is appropriate for Congress to require the 
     establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the 
     manufacture and importation of cigarettes;
       (6) the most recent study by the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and 
     personal property from the absence of a cigarette fire safety 
     standard is $6,000,000,000 a year; and
       (7) it is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a 
     cigarette fire safety standard.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission.
       (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 3 of the Federal Cigarette 
     Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332).
       (3) Stockpiling.--The term ``stockpiling'' means the 
     manufacturing or importing of a cigarette during the period 
     beginning on the date of promulgation of a rule under section 
     3(a) and ending on the effective date of that rule, at a rate 
     greater than the rate at which cigarettes were manufactured 
     or imported during the 1-year period immediately preceding 
     the date of promulgation of that rule.

     SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Promulgation of cigarette fire safety standard.--Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Commission shall promulgate a rule that establishes a 
     cigarette fire safety standard for cigarettes to reduce the 
     risk of ignition presented by cigarettes.
       (2) Requirements.--In establishing the cigarette fire 
     safety standard under paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) consult with the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology and make use of such capabilities of 
     the as the Commission considers necessary;
       (B) seek the advice and expertise of the heads of other 
     Federal agencies and State agencies engaged in fire safety; 
     and
       (C) take into account the final report to Congress made by 
     the Commission and the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and 
     Little Cigar Fire Safety established under section 3 of the 
     Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note), that 
     includes a finding that cigarettes with a low ignition 
     propensity were already on the market at the time of the 
     preparation of the report.
       (b) Stockpiling.--The Commission shall include in the rule 
     promulgated under subsection (a) a prohibition on the 
     stockpiling of cigarettes covered by the rule.
       (c) Effective Date of Rule.--The rule promulgated under 
     subsection (a) shall take effect not later than 30 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Procedure.--
       (1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a) shall be 
     promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no 
     other provision of Federal law shall be construed to apply 
     with respect to the promulgation of a rule under subsection 
     (a), including--
       (A) the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et 
     seq.);
       (B) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code;
       (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (D) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
     of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) and the amendments made by that 
     Act.
       (e) Judicial Review.--
       (1) General rule.--
       (A) In general.--Any person who is adversely affected by 
     the rule promulgated under subsection (a) may, at any time 
     before the 60th day after the Commission promulgates the 
     rule, file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit 
     in which that person resides or has its principal place of 
     business to obtain judicial review of the rule.
       (B) Petition.--Upon the filing of a petition under 
     subparagraph (A), a copy of the petition shall be transmitted 
     by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of Commerce. The 
     Commission shall file in the court the record of the 
     proceedings on which the Commission based the rule, in the 
     same manner as is prescribed for the review of an order 
     issued by an agency under section 2112 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Additional evidence.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to a petition filed under 
     paragraph (1), the court may order additional evidence (and 
     evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the 
     Commission in a hearing or in such other manner, and upon 
     such terms and conditions, as the court considers 
     appropriate, if the petitioner--
       (i) applies to the court for leave to adduce additional 
     evidence; and
       (ii) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, that--

       (I) such additional evidence is material; and
       (II) there was no opportunity to adduce such evidence in 
     the proceeding before the Commission.

       (B) Modification.--With respect to the rule promulgated by 
     the Commission under subsection (a), the Commission--
       (i) may modify the findings of fact of the Commission, or 
     make new findings, by reason of any additional evidence taken 
     by a court under subparagraph (A); and

[[Page S3463]]

       (ii) if the Commission makes a modification under clause 
     (i), shall file with the court the modified or new findings, 
     together with such recommendations as the Commission 
     determines to be appropriate, for the modification of the 
     rule, to be promulgated as a final rule under subsection (a).
       (3) Court jurisdiction.--Upon the filing of a petition 
     under paragraph (1), the court shall have jurisdiction to 
     review the rule of the Commission, as modified under 
     paragraph (2), in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (f) Small Business Review.--Section 30 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) shall not apply with respect 
     to--
       (1) a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated by the 
     Commission under subsection (a); or
       (2) any agency action taken to enforce that standard.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Prohibition.--No person may--
       (1) manufacture or import a cigarette, unless the cigarette 
     is in compliance with a cigarette fire safety standard 
     promulgated under section 3(a); or
       (2) fail to provide information as required under this Act.
       (b) Penalty.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be 
     considered a violation of section 19 of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).

     SEC. 5. PREEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--This Act, including the cigarette fire 
     safety standard promulgated under section 3(a), shall not be 
     construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any manner any 
     law of a State or political subdivision thereof that 
     prescribes a fire safety standard for cigarettes that is more 
     stringent than the standard promulgated under section 3(a).
       (b) Defenses.--In any civil action for damages, compliance 
     with the fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a) 
     may not be admitted as a defense.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 731. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of 
prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on 
Finance.


             the prescription drug fairness for seniors act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are well on our way to doubling the 
budget of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists are discovering 
new cures and developing new therapies for previously incurable and 
untreatable illnesses on a regular basis. Breakthrough medications are 
modern medical miracles that allow people with previously crippling 
conditions to lead normal lives. Yet too many of our nation's elderly 
citizens are denied access to these life-saving and life-improving 
therapies because they lack basic coverage for prescription 
medications.
  Today I am introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors 
Act of 1999,'' the Senate companion bill to H.R. 664, introduced in the 
House last month by Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion 
Berry, Henry Waxman, and sixty-one other House Members. This 
legislation responds to the need for affordable prescription drugs for 
senior citizens by requiring pharmaceutical companies to make the same 
discounts available to senior citizens that are offered to their most 
favored customers. Prescription drugs represent the largest single 
source of out-of-pocket costs for health services paid for by the 
elderly. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act will provide significant 
benefits to elderly citizens struggling to pay for the prescription 
drugs they need.
  This Act represents one important way to improve senior citizens' 
access to affordable medications. Other steps are necessary as well to 
deal with the overall prescription drug crisis facing millions of 
elderly citizens. I plan to introduce legislation soon that will offer 
additional protections. Providing fair access to prescription drugs for 
senior citizens is a high priority, and I hope to see quick action by 
Congress on this critical issue this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 731

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Drug Fairness 
     for Seniors Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Manufacturers of prescription drugs engage in price 
     discrimination practices that compel many older Americans to 
     pay substantially more for prescription drugs than the drug 
     manufacturers' most favored customers, such as health 
     insurers, health maintenance organizations, and the Federal 
     Government.
       (2) On average, older Americans who buy their own 
     prescription drugs pay twice as much for prescription drugs 
     as the drug manufacturers' most favored customers. In some 
     cases, older Americans pay over 15 times more for 
     prescription drugs than the most favored customers.
       (3) The discriminatory pricing by major drug manufacturers 
     sustains their annual profits of $20,000,000,000, but causes 
     financial hardship and impairs the health and well-being of 
     millions of older Americans. More than 1 in 8 older Americans 
     are forced to choose between buying their food and buying 
     their medicines.
       (4) Most federally funded health care programs, including 
     medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Public 
     Health Service, and the Indian Health Service, obtain 
     prescription drugs for their beneficiaries at low prices. 
     Medicare beneficiaries are denied this benefit and cannot 
     obtain their prescription drugs at the favorable prices 
     available to other federally funded health care programs.
       (5) Implementation of the policy set forth in this Act is 
     estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for medicare 
     beneficiaries by more than 40 percent.
       (6) In addition to substantially lowering the costs of 
     prescription drugs for older Americans, implementation of the 
     policy set forth in this Act will significantly improve the 
     health and well-being of older Americans and lower the costs 
     to the Federal taxpayer of the medicare program.
       (7) Older Americans who are terminally ill and receiving 
     hospice care services represent some of the most vulnerable 
     individuals in our Nation. Making prescription drugs 
     available to medicare beneficiaries under the care of 
     medicare-certified hospices will assist in extending the 
     benefits of lower prescription drug prices to those most 
     vulnerable and in need.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to protect 
     medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug 
     manufacturers and to make prescription drugs available to 
     medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices.

     SEC. 3. PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURERS.

       (a) In General.--Each participating manufacturer of a 
     covered outpatient drug shall make available for purchase by 
     each pharmacy such covered outpatient drug in the amount 
     described in subsection (b) at the price described in 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Description of Amount of Drugs.--The amount of a 
     covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer 
     shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy is an amount 
     equal to the aggregate amount of the covered outpatient drug 
     sold or distributed by the pharmacy to medicare 
     beneficiaries.
       (c) Description of Price.--The price at which a 
     participating manufacturer shall make a covered outpatient 
     drug available for purchase by a pharmacy is the price equal 
     to the lower of the following:
       (1) The lowest price paid for the covered outpatient drug 
     by any agency or department of the United States.
       (2) The manufacturer's best price for the covered 
     outpatient drug, as defined in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(C)).

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO HOSPICE PROGRAMS.

       For purposes of determining the amount of a covered 
     outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make 
     available for purchase by a pharmacy under section 3, there 
     shall be included in the calculation of such amount the 
     amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by 
     a pharmacy to a hospice program. In calculating such amount, 
     only amounts of the covered outpatient drug furnished to a 
     medicare beneficiary enrolled in the hospice program shall be 
     included.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be 
     necessary to implement this Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this 
     Act in--
       (1) protecting medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory 
     pricing by drug manufacturers; and
       (2) making prescription drugs available to medicare 
     beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices.
       (b) Consultation.--In preparing such reports, the Secretary 
     shall consult with public health experts, affected 
     industries, organizations representing consumers and older 
     Americans, and other interested persons.
       (c) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall include in such 
     reports any recommendations that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate for changes in this Act to further reduce the 
     cost of covered outpatient drugs to medicare beneficiaries.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Participating manufacturer.--The term ``participating 
     manufacturer'' means

[[Page S3464]]

     any manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that, on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, enters into or renews a 
     contract or agreement with the United States for the sale or 
     distribution of covered outpatient drugs to the United 
     States.
       (2) Covered outpatient drug.--The term ``covered outpatient 
     drug'' has the meaning given that term in section 1927(k)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(2)).
       (3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare 
     beneficiary'' means an individual entitled to benefits under 
     part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled 
     under part B of such title, or both.
       (4) Hospice program.--The term ``hospice program'' has the 
     meaning given that term under section 1861(dd)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The Secretary shall implement this Act as expeditiously as 
     practicable and in a manner consistent with the obligations 
     of the United States.

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, today by introducing the ``Prescription Drug 
Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. Earlier this year, Representatives 
Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Barry, and Henry Waxman were joined by 
sixty-one of their colleagues when they introduced H.R. 664, ``The 
Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act of 1999'' in the U.S. House 
of Representatives.
  This legislation addresses the critical issue facing our older 
Americans--the cost of their prescription drugs. Studies have shown 
that older Americans spend almost three times as much of their income 
(21%) on health care than those under the age of 65 (8%), and more than 
three-quarters of Americans aged 65 and over are taking prescription 
drugs. Even more alarming is the fact that seniors and others who buy 
their own prescription drugs, are forced to pay over twice as much for 
their drugs as are the drug manufacturers' most favored customers, such 
as the federal government and large HMOs.
  The ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act'' will protect 
senior citizens from drug price discrimination and make prescription 
drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced 
prices. The legislation achieves these goals by allowing pharmacies 
that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the 
low prices available under the Federal Supply Schedule, similar to the 
Veterans Administration, Public Health Service and Indian Health 
Service. Estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by 
over 40%, this bill will help those seniors who often times have to 
make devastating choices between buying food or medications. Choices 
that no human being should have to make.
  Research and development of new drug therapies is an important and 
necessary tool towards improving a persons quality of life. But due to 
the high price tag that often accompanies the latest drug therapies, 
seniors are often left without access to these new therapies, and 
ultimately, in far too many instances, without access to medication at 
all. This legislation is an important step towa4rds restoring the 
access to affordable medications for our medicare beneficiaries. I look 
forward to working on this important issue in the months to come and 
hope that Congress will work swiftly in a bipartisan manner to enact 
legislation that will benefit millions of senior citizens across our 
nation.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to joint my colleagues, 
Senators Kennedy, Johnson, Leahy, Wellstone, Inouye, Kerry and others 
in introducing the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act.
  Mr. President, the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs has long 
been among the top 2 or 3 issues my constituents in Wisconsin call and 
write to me about. The problem of expensive prescription drugs is 
particularly acute among Wisconsin senior citizens who live on fixed 
incomes. Nationally, prescription drugs are Senior Citizens' largest 
single out-of-pocket health care expenditure: the average Senior spends 
$100-$200 month on prescription drugs.
  As you may know, Mr. President, last fall, a study by the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee found that the average price 
seniors pay for prescription drugs is twice as high as that enjoyed by 
favored customers--big purchasers such as HMOs and the federal 
government. The Committee's report found a price differential in one 
case was 1400%, meaning that the retail price a typical senior citizen 
was $27.05, while the favored customer was charged only $1.75.
  To be sure, Mr. President, the Committee's report did find that 
Wisconsin had lower price differentials compared to other parts of the 
country, an 85% differential compared to a high of 123% in California. 
But I think my constituents would find that a pretty hollow 
distinction. There's no doubt in my mind that paying 85% more than 
others are charged for the same product is unfair, plain and simple.
  Mr. President, as we all know, traditional Medicare does not cover 
prescription drugs. While some Medicare managed care plans offer a 
prescription drug benefit, few of those managed care plans operate in 
Wisconsin or in other largely rural states. So, while pharmaceutical 
companies give lower prices to favored customers who buy in bulk, small 
community pharmacies such as we have throughout Wisconsin lack this 
purchasing power, meaning that Seniors who purchase their prescription 
drugs at those small pharmacies get the high prices passed on to them.
  Mr. President, I regularly get calls from Seniors on tight, fixed 
incomes who tell me that they have to choose between buying groceries 
and buying their prescription drugs. I would guess that many of my 
colleagues receive similar calls from their constituents. Calls like 
these, and the fact that prices are only getting higher as scientific 
advances develop new medications, tell me that we must take action to 
make prescription drugs more affordable to Seniors.
  The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today will 
require that pharmaceutical companies offer senior citizens the same 
discounts that they offer to their most favored customers. Through this 
legislation, we take an important step in making costly but vitally 
important prescription drugs more affordable to the Seniors who need 
them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 732. A bill to require the Inspector General of the Department of 
Defense to conduct an audit of purchases of military clothing and 
related items made during fiscal year 1998 by certain military 
installations of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.


                        buy american legislation

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will help ensure that American soldiers are using 
American made products. ``Buy American'' laws guarantee that our 
nation's military has access to a reliable domestic supply of uniforms, 
coats, and other apparel. This critical national security requirement 
has allowed U.S. garment manufacturers to consistently provide our 
armed forces with high-quality, durable clothing products made to exact 
military specifications.
  Last year, I was deeply troubled to learn that an Inspector General 
audit found that 59 percent of government contracts at 12 military 
organizations failed to include the appropriate clause to implement Buy 
America laws. The results of this audit indicates a high likelihood 
that there have been widespread violations of these laws throughout the 
military.
  In response to these findings, I have introduced legislation 
directing the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD) to 
conduct an audit of fiscal year 1998 procurements of military clothing 
by four installations of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. 
These audits will help determine whether contracting officers are 
complying with the law when they procure military clothing and related 
items.
  Mr. President, the Buy American laws are an invaluable tool for 
ensuring our military readiness while supporting American jobs. Most of 
these jobs are created by small U.S. contractors. This legislation will 
provide an important follow-up audit to determine whether DoD is 
effectively enforcing the Buy American laws.
  Mr. President, I ask at this time that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 732

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S3465]]

     SECTION 1. AUDIT OF PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY CLOTHING AND 
                   CLOTHING-RELATED ITEMS BY CERTAIN MILITARY 
                   INSTALLATIONS.

       (a) Audit Requirement.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense shall perform an audit of purchases of 
     military clothing and clothing-related items in excess of the 
     micro-purchase threshold that were made during fiscal year 
     1998 by certain military installations to determine the 
     extent to which such installations procured military clothing 
     and clothing-related items in violation of the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) and section 9005 of Public Law 
     102-396 (10 U.S.C. 2241 note) during that fiscal year.
       (b) Installations To Be Audited.--The audit under 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) shall include an audit of the procurement of military 
     clothing and clothing-related items by four military 
     installations of each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
     Marine Corps; and
       (2) shall be limited to military installations in the 
     United States or the possessions of the United States.
       (c) Definition.--As used in subsection (a), the term 
     ``micro-purchase threshold'' has the meaning provided by 
     32(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 428(f)).
       (d) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the audit performed 
     under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 733. A bill to enact the Passaic River Basin Flood Management 
Program; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


         Protection and Improvement of the Passaic River Basin

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator 
Lautenberg, to introduce a bill to create a comprehensive flood 
management plan for the Passaic River Basin.
  In 1990, Congress, with my support, authorized a plan to create a 21-
mile long tunnel, which would have stretched from Wayne to Newark Bay 
to divert flood water from the Pompton and Passaic Rivers in New 
Jersey. At the time it was believed that the tunnel was the best method 
to end recurring floods that caused deaths and property losses for the 
region's 2.5 million residents.
  Flooding has plagued the Passaic River Basin since colonial times. 
The State of New Jersey attempted to present solutions to the public as 
early as 1870 with no success. After major floods in 1902 and 1903, a 
series of engineering studies were completed but never implemented. In 
1936, the Corps of Engineers were directed by Congress to solve the 
flooding problems. Since that time (63 years), several proposals have 
been presented only to be rejected. Flooding in the Passaic River 
Basin, in 1993, caused $15 million in damage. The last major flooding, 
in 1984, killed three people, caused 9,400 evacuations and $425 million 
in damage.
  Ten years ago, I supported the tunnel plan. I believed that it was 
the best possible answer for the region. I understood the plan for the 
tunnel to be environmentally and economically sound, and the most 
protective option for the public's health. It promised to create jobs 
for the region and solve the persistent flooding within the Passaic 
River Basin, which encompasses 132 towns in 10 counties.
  It has now become clear that this project is no longer viable and 
does not enjoy the support of the state or most of the surrounding 
communities. So last year, along with so many other of my fellow New 
Jerseyans, I came to the realization that the flood tunnel was not the 
answer for the Passaic. At a cost of $1.8 billion, the plan was too 
expensive. As a matter of engineering, it was too complex. As a matter 
of environmental protection, it was too uncertain. More importantly, 
after countless hearings, counties and municipalities within the 
Passaic River Basin rejected the current plan.
  It will be far less costly and more environmentally sound to control 
the flooding by shoring up the banks of the Passaic and Ramapo Rivers 
and purchasing properties in the flood zone so the river's natural 
wetlands may rebound. We should also fund plans to reduce flooding from 
combined sewer overflow systems in the state's older, larger cities, 
which dump raw sewage into waterways during heavy rainfall. Our plan 
would be more cost effective and more environmentally acceptable than 
the flood tunnel.
  The proposed Passaic River Basin Flood Management Program selects a 
qualified acquisition and hazard mitigation plan as the preferred 
alternative for flood control in the Passaic River Basin, superseding 
the Passaic River flood tunnel.
  The plan calls for acquiring freshwater wetlands in the State of New 
Jersey and lands in the Highlands Province of the States of New Jersey 
and New York to prevent increased flooding. In key sections of the 
floodplain of the Central Passaic River Basin structures would be 
acquired, demolished, removed or floodproofed. The plan also calls for 
the acquisition of river front land from Little Falls to Newark Bay 
along the Passaic River Basin. The plan would also authorize assistance 
in the implementation of remedial actions for the combined sewer 
overflows in the lower Passaic River Basin from the Great Falls to 
Newark Bay. Finally, it established an Oversight Committee for the 
implementation of the Program, and reaffirms authorization for 
completion of Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and 
Historic Area, New Jersey.
  The original legislation that created the tunnel, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990, also authorized many other very important 
projects for the Passaic River Basin region. The Streambank project 
called for the construction of environmental and other restoration 
measures, including bulkheads, recreation, greenbelt, and scenic 
overlook facilities. The Wetlands Bank program developed initiatives to 
restore, acquire, preserve, study, and enhance wetlands.
  I want to make clear that our interest in this legislation is only to 
replace construction of the tunnel with a more environmentally and 
economically appropriate plan. I still support, and will continue to 
support, those sections of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
that address issues other than the flood tunnel. Programs, such as the 
Streambank project and the Wetlands Bank, remain important building 
blocks for creating an effective flood management plan for the Passaic 
River Basin.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 734. A bill entitled the ``National Discovery Trails Act of 
1999''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 National Discovery Trails Act of 1999

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, trails are one of America's most 
popular recreational resources. Millions of Americans hike, ski, jog, 
bike, ride horses, drive snow machines and all-terrain vehicles, 
observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the country. A 
variety of trails are provided nationwide, including urban bike paths, 
bridle paths, community green ways, historic trails, motorized trails, 
and long distance hiking trails.
  The American Discovery Trail, or ADT, will be established by this 
legislation. The ADT is being proposed as a continuous, coast to coast 
trail to link the nation's principal north-south trails and east-west 
historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a 
nationwide network.
  By establishing a system of Discovery Trails, this new category will 
recognize that using and enjoying trails close to home is equally as 
important as traversing remote wilderness trails. Long-distance trails 
are used mostly by people living close to the trail and by week-
end'ers. Backpacking excursions are normally a few days to a couple of 
weeks. For example, of the estimated four million users of the 
Appalachian Trail each year, only about 100 to 150 walk the entire 
trail annually. This will be true of the American Discovery Trail as 
well, especially because of it proximity to urban locations throughout 
the country.
  The ADT, the first of the Discovery Trails, will connect six of the 
national scenic trails, 10 of the national historic trails, 23 of the 
national recreational trails and hundreds of other local and regional 
trails. Until now, the element that has been missing in order to create 
a national system of ``connected'' trails is that the existing trails 
for the most part are not connected.
  The ADT is about access. The trail will connect people to large 
cities, small towns and urban areas and to mountains, forest, desert 
and natural areas by incorporating local, regional and national trails 
together.

[[Page S3466]]

  What makes the ADT so exciting is the way it has already brought 
people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 
miles support the effort. Each state the trail passes through already 
has a volunteer coordinator who leads an active ADT committee. This 
strong grassroots effort, along with financial support from Backpacker 
magazine, Eco USA, The Coleman Company and others have helped take the 
ADT from dream to reality.
  Only one more very important step on the trail needs to be taken. 
Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our National Trails 
System.
  The American Discovery Trail begins (or ends) with your two feet in 
the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San 
Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the 
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and Lake Tahoe, in the middle of 
the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
  Nevada will offer Historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, 
the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park 
with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak.
  Utah will provide National Forests and Parks along with spectacular 
red rock country, until you get to Colorado and Colorado National 
Monument and its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then 
there's Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass, and Crested Butte, in the heart 
of ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails 
into Evergreen.
  At Denver the ADT divides and becomes the Northern and Southern 
Midwest routes. The Northern Midwest Route winds through Nebraska, 
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The Southern Midwest Route leaves 
Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon 
wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri 
as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky until the trail joins the Northern route in Cincinnati.
  West Virginia is next, then Maryland to the C&O Canal into Washington 
D.C. The Trail passes the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then 
heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the ADT reaches its 
eastern terminus at Cape Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean.
  Between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans one will experience some of 
the most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, 
lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an 
opportunity to discover America from small towns, to rural countryside, 
to large metropolitan areas,
  When the President signs this legislation into law, a twelve year 
effort will have been achieved--the American Discovery Trail will have 
become a reality. The more people who use it, the better.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 735. A bill to protect children from firearms violence; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


             children's gun violence prevention act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Boxer, 
Senator Durbin, and Senator Schumer in introducing the Children's Gun 
violence Prevention Act of 1999.
  The continuing epidemic of gun violence involving children demands 
action by Congress. The School tragedies in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, 
Oregon, Kentucky, and Mississippi in the last year are still very much 
in the nation's mind and on the nation's conscience. We deplore the 
senseless injury and loss of life, the families torn apart, and the 
communities in fear.
  Sadly and tragically, the horrific shootings of last year do not tell 
the whole story. The fact is: We are losing 13 children every day in 
this country to gunshot wounds. Think about that--13 children die every 
single day because of guns. We must do more--much more--to prevent this 
senseless loss of children's lives.
  We require aspirin bottles to be child-proof. We know how to make 
handguns child-proof too--and it is long past time we did so.
  The legislation we propose today is an important step in meeting our 
responsibility for the safety of children. We can take common sense, 
reasonable steps to keep children safer from gun violence by developing 
and using cutting-edge technology and by educating families and 
communities about preventing gun violence involving children.
  This legislation will help all of us to deal more responsibly with 
this festering crisis. Under this proposal, gun owners must take 
responsibility for securing their guns, so that children cannot use 
them. Gun dealers must be more vigilant in not selling guns and 
ammunition to children. Child-proof safety locks must be used. Other 
child safety features for guns must be developed.
  America does more today to regulate the safety of toy guns than real 
guns--and it is a national disgrace. Practical steps can clearly be 
taken to protect children more effectively from guns, and to achieve 
greater responsibility by parents, gun manufacturers and gun dealers. 
This legislation calls for such steps--and it deserves to be enacted 
this year by this Congress.
  I urge the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to bring it to a vote. I ask 
unanimous consent that a more detailed description of the bill may be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, of follows:

         Summary of the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act


               title i: the children's firearm safety act

       The bill establishes, after 18 months, new safety standards 
     on the manufacture and importation of handguns, requiring a 
     child-resistant trigger, a child resistant safety lock, a 
     magazine safety, a manual safety, and satisfactory compliance 
     with a drop test.
       The bill authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     to study, test, and evaluate various technologies and means 
     of making guns more child-resistant, and to report to 
     Congress within 12 months on its findings.


                 title ii: children's firearm age limit

       The bill prohibits the sale of an assault weapon to anyone 
     under the age of 18, and increases the criminal penalties for 
     selling a gun to a juvenile.


            title iii: responsibilities of firearms dealers

       The bill requires the automatic revocation of the license 
     of any dealer found to have willfully sold a gun to a 
     juvenile.
       It requires two forms of identification, including one 
     government issued, for purchasers under the age of 24.
       It requires gun store owners to implement minimum safety 
     and security standards to prevent the theft of firearms.


             title iv: children's firearm access prevention

       The bill imposes fines on a gun owner of up to $10,000 if a 
     child gains access to a loaded firearm, and criminal 
     penalties of up to one year in prison if the gun is used in 
     an act of violence.


            title v: children's firearm injury surveillance

       The bill authorizes $25 million over five years to be used 
     for the creation and implementation of a children's firearm 
     surveillance system by the Injury Prevention Center of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


         title vi: children's gun violence prevention education

       The bill creates an education program with the help of 
     parent-teacher organizations, local law enforcement, and 
     community-based organizations. The program will teach 
     children what to do if they hear that a classmate has brought 
     a gun to school, or if they are faced with a violent 
     situation.


                 title vii: children's firearm tracking

       The bill expands the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 
     Initiative and creates a grant program for local law 
     enforcement agencies for the tracing of guns used in juvenile 
     crime.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 737. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide States with options for providing family planning services and 
supplies to women eligible for medical assistance under the Medicaid 
program; to the Committee on Finance.


                 family planning state flexibility act

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator 
Feinstein in introducing the Family Planning State Flexibility Act, 
legislation to give states the option to expand their family planning 
coverage under Medicaid.
  Family planning reduces the rate of unintended pregnancies and 
abortions by providing women with the knowledge and supplies necessary 
to time

[[Page S3467]]

their pregnancies to protect their health and the health of their 
children. The importance of family planning is clear. According to a 
study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine women 
who wait 18 to 23 months after delivery before conceiving their next 
child lower the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, including low birth 
weight, pre-term birth and small size for gestational age. In addition, 
women who wait less than six months between pregnancies are 40% more 
likely to have premature newborns and 30% to 40% more likely to have 
small babies.
  In addition to improving health outcomes for childbearing women and 
their children, family planning is cost effective. Studies have found 
that for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $3 are 
saved in pregnancy and other related costs. This is particularly 
important for the Medicaid Program, which currently pays for 38% of all 
births in this country.
  Recognizing that family planning is a vital service to women, a 1972 
amendment to the Medicaid statute mandated inclusion of family planning 
services and supplies to women who are eligible for the program. Each 
state is free to determine the specific services and supplies provided. 
It is important to note that abortions are not considered a family 
planner service. Congress further noted the importance of family 
planning services by requiring the federal government to reimburse 
states for 90% of their family planning expenditures.
  Eligible women are either those with children who have income below a 
threshold set by the state or those who are pregnant and have incomes 
up to 133% of poverty. States currently have the option to raise the 
income limit for pregnant women to 185% of poverty. Women who qualify 
for Medicaid due to pregnancy are currently eligible for family 
planning services for six months after delivery.
  Recognizing the importance of family planning beyond the six month 
post-partum period, many states have applied for waivers to extend 
their coverage period or to include additional groups of women in the 
program. Thirteen states are currently operating under family planning 
waivers. Unfortunately, the waiver process can be extremely cumbersome 
and time consuming, which may discourage states from applying.
  Our bill would allow states to expand their family planning coverage 
to women who earn up to 185% of poverty without having to spend the 
time and resources going through the waiver application process. States 
which are currently operating under waivers allowing for coverage of 
women who have higher incomes would continue using their current limit.
  Family planning reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions, improves 
the health of women and their children, reduces welfare dependency and 
is cost effective. I am very proud of this legislation which would 
provide these vital services to increased numbers of low-income women. 
I ask unanimous consent that the legislation and a congressional 
rationale be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 737

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Family Plnnning State 
     Flexibility Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND 
                   SUPPLIES TO WOMEN WITH INCOMES THAT DO NOT 
                   EXCEED A STATE'S INCOME ELIGIBILITY LEVEL FOR 
                   MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1935 as section 1936; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1934 the following:


   state option to provide family planning services and supplies to 
                             certain women

       ``Sec. 1935. (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), a State may elect (through a State plan amendment) 
     to make medical assistance described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) 
     available to any woman whose family income does not exceed 
     the greater of--
       ``(1) 185 percent of the income official poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of 
     the size involved; or
       ``(2) the eligibility income level (expressed as a percent 
     of such poverty line) that has been specified under a waiver 
     authorized by the Secretary or under section 1902(r)(2)), as 
     of October 1, 1999, for a woman to be eligible for medical 
     assistance under the State plan.
       ``(b) Comparability.--Medical assistance described in 
     section 1905(a)(4)(C) that is made available under a State 
     plan amendment under subsection (a) shall not be less in 
     amount, duration, or scope than the medical assistance 
     described in that section that is made available to any other 
     individual under the State plan.
       ``(c) Maintenance of Effort.--No payment shall be made 
     under section 1903(a)(5) for medical assistance made 
     available under a State plan amendment under subsection (a) 
     unless the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that, with respect to a fiscal year, the State 
     share of funds expended for such fiscal year for all 
     Federally funded programs under which the State provides or 
     makes available family planning services is not less than the 
     level of the State share expended for such programs during 
     fiscal year 2000.
       ``(d) Option To Extend Coverage During a Post-Eligibility 
     Period.--
       ``(1) Initial period.--A State plan amendment made under 
     subsection (a) may provide that any woman who was receiving 
     medical assistance described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) as a 
     result of such amendment, and who becomes ineligible for such 
     assistance because of hours of, or income from, employment, 
     may remain eligible for such medical assistance through the 
     end of the 6-month period that begins on the first day she 
     becomes so ineligible.
       ``(2) Additional extension.--A State plan amendment made 
     under subsection (a) may provide that any women who has 
     received medical assistance described in section 
     1905(a)(4)(C) during the entire 6-month period described in 
     paragraph (1) may be extended coverage for such assistance 
     for a succeeding 6-month period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to medical assistance provided on and after October 1, 
     1999.

     SEC. 3. STATE OPTION TO EXTEND THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD FOR 
                   PROVISION OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND 
                   SUPPLIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902(e)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``eligible under the plan, as though'' and 
     inserting ``eligible under the plan--
       ``(A) as though'';
       (2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) for medical assistance described in section 
     1905(a)(4)(C) for so long as the family income of such woman 
     does not exceed the maximum income level established by the 
     State for the woman to be eligible for medical assistance 
     under the State plan (as a result of pregnancy or 
     otherwise).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to medical assistance provided on and after October 1, 
     1999.
                                  ____


                               Rationale

       Congress finds that:
       Each year in the United States, 3 million pregnancies, or 
     half of all pregnancies, are unintended;
       Contraceptives for both sexes are effective in reducing 
     rates of unintended pregnancy. 85 percent of sexually active 
     women who do not use any form of contraception will become 
     pregnant in any single year, while just 3-6 percent of women 
     taking birth control pills will become pregnant;
       Contraceptives also help families to space their births, 
     improving the mothers' health and reducing rates of infant 
     mortality and low birthweight;
       By helping to plan pregnancies, contraceptives help parents 
     participate in the workforce and support themselves and their 
     families;
       By reducing rates of unintended pregnancy, contraceptives 
     help reduce the need for abortion;
       Family planning is cost effective: for every $1 invested in 
     family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and other related 
     costs;
       Many low-income individuals in need of family planning do 
     not qualify for Medicaid because they fail to meet stringent 
     eligibility requirements;
       Medicaid currently pays for 38 percent of all births in 
     this country;
       Medicaid provides family planning to many low-income women 
     for only 60 days following a delivery, risking unintended 
     pregnancies that jeopardize the health of women and their 
     children;
       In light of the significant health risks to women and 
     children resulting from very short intervals between births, 
     the Institute of Medicine recommends that Medicaid coverage 
     of family planning should be extended to two years following 
     a birth.
       Currently, states can only extend Medicaid family planning 
     services to larger populations of low-income individuals by 
     applying to the federal government for a waiver, which can be 
     a cumbersome and time consuming process;
       Under current law, states have the option to cover pregnant 
     women up to 185% of the federal poverty level without a 
     waiver, but

[[Page S3468]]

     states must get a waiver to provide family planning services 
     to women with the same income who are trying to prevent 
     pregnancy. Non-pregnant women should be put on parity with 
     pregnant women with regard to coverage of family planning 
     services.

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill 
with Senator Chafee to enable states to extend family planning services 
without getting a federal waiver from the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services.
  Under our bill, states could do two things they cannot do under 
current law without the waiver of federal rules:
  (1) States could expand by income level coverage for family planning 
services to ``near-poor'' women, women whose incomes are slightly above 
the currently allowed levels; and
  (2) States could provide family planning for more than 60 days after 
a woman delivers a baby.
  Our bill will enable states to automatically take these two steps 
without getting a federal waiver.
  Every year in this country, there are 3 million pregnancies, half of 
which are unintended. To a poor woman, struggling to find a job, keep a 
job, or provide for the children she already has, an unplanned 
pregnancy can be devastating. In an effort to reduce unintended 
pregnancies, Medicaid provides a higher federal matching rate (90 
percent, instead of the roughly 50 percent, in federal funds) for 
family planning services. This bill can further enhance these goals by 
preventing pregnancies and by helping women plan their pregnancies.
  In addition, family planning saves money. Ironically, under current 
law, the group of women whom this bill covers become eligible for 
Medicaid once they are pregnant, so Medicaid then pays for their 
prenatal care, their delivery and 60 days of family planning following 
delivery. Medicaid pays for 38 percent of all births in the United 
States. Studies show that for every $1.00 invested in family planning, 
$3.00 are saved in pregnancy and health-related costs. Recognizing the 
value of expanding family planning services, 13 states have received 
waivers to make the expansions and California has applied for one.
  It is my hope that the bill we introduce today can improve the health 
of women and their children by reducing unwanted pregnancies, welfare 
dependency, the incidence of abortion, the incidence of low-birth 
weight babies and the incidence of infant mortality. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 739. A bill to amend the American Indian Trust Fund Management 
Reform Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to contract with 
qualified financial institutions for the investment of certain trust 
funds, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


      amendment to indian trust fund management reform act of 1994

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment 
to the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 to provide 
Indian Tribal Trust fund beneficiaries the option of having their trust 
funds managed according to their wishes, which could add measurably to 
the value of their trust funds. For individual Indian trust fund 
beneficiaries, the legislation would allow them to earn greater returns 
through government-regulated trust departments than allowed by current 
law.
  This bill is an outgrowth of a joint hearing held March 3rd of this 
year by the Senate Committees on Indian Affairs and Energy & Natural 
Resources to investigate the Department of Interior's efforts to reform 
the trust management systems for individual Indians and Indian Tribes.
  The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the U.S. government, acts 
as the trustee for some 1,500 tribal trust funds for 338 Indian tribes 
with assets of $2.6 billion. He performs a similar service for 300,000 
individual Indian accounts totaling some $500 million. For well over 
100 years, these accounts have been in severe disarray, and in my mind, 
recent reform efforts under the Indian Trust Fund Management Act show 
few tangible signs of improvement.
  Funds are unaccounted for, paperwork is missing, and Indians are 
uncertain about the accuracy of the amounts reported in their trust 
accounts. Recent newspaper reports tell of an ongoing inability or 
unwillingness on the part of the Departments of the Interior and 
Treasury to comply with requests from the U.S. District Court to 
produce documents relating to a small number of trust accounts. The 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell, has shown an unflagging commitment to ensure that 
the Indian trust fund debacle is cleaned up and put upon a sound 
footing for the Indian beneficiaries whose only sin has been to trust 
the word of the Federal Government.
  While I look forward to working with Chairman Campbell on his efforts 
to compel the Department of the Interior to institute the reforms 
necessary to come to grips with the ongoing problems of the Indian 
trust fund management, this bill is not designed to tackle that 
daunting task.
  This will would grant Indian Tribes the option of having their funds 
treated the same way trust beneficiaries' funds are treated by prudent 
bank trust departments throughout this nation. Presently, federal law 
prohibits the Office of Trust Management from investing Indian trust 
funds in anything other than government-guaranteed instruments. This 
severely limits the rate of return Indians receive, to the point that 
they receive the lowest rate of return of any trust beneficiaries in 
the country.
  Virtually all other trust funds in the country are managed under the 
``prudent investor'' rule, which, when coupled with government 
regulation of trust departments, ensures that trust funds are managed 
conservatively but wisely for the long term best interests of the trust 
beneficiary.
  The express prohibition against investment of Indian trust funds in 
all but government-guaranteed instruments has a dual effect on 
America's first--and poorest--residents. First, it restricts the growth 
of their trust funds. Second, it means that Indian trust funds will not 
be available for investment in Indian Country.
  Under my proposal, the Secretary of the Interior, working with the 
Comptroller of the Currency, would contract with qualified financial 
institutions that are regulated by a federal bank regulatory agency for 
the investment of funds managed for Indian Tribes and individuals. 
Tribes would still have the option of keeping their money in 
government-guaranteed low-yield instruments if they so choose.
  Those funds invested with government-regulated trust institutions 
would be managed according to the prudent investor rules governing all 
other trusts throughout the country. The U.S. government would still 
act as the guarantor of those funds through its regulatory and 
enforcement mechanisms. Because stated balances of trust funds may not 
be accurate due to historical mismanagement, the legislation is 
intended to ensure that if Indian trust funds are managed by private 
financial institutions, possible claims against the government for 
accurate balances are not extinguished.
  Moreover, the Secretary would be directed, in the selection of a 
qualified financial institution, to comply with the Buy-Indian Act (25 
U.S.C. 47). This would mean that if qualified Indian-owned financial 
institutions were properly regulated and certified, investment of 
Indian trust funds could act as investment capital for expanding 
economic opportunities in Indian country.
  It is my hope that through the successful implementation of this 
legislation, we will see Indian people finally getting a fair return on 
their dollars, which might very well be generated from new enterprises 
via investments of their own monies. The American dream should not be 
allowed to be continued to be denied to the First Americans.
  Mr. President, the Secretary of the Interior, is not an investment 
banker. There are a variety of things that the federal government does 
not do well, and the management of trust funds is one of them. We have 
financial institutions that are regulated and who have the experience 
of managing large trust funds. We have a large body of law governing 
the fiduciary responsibility of trustees. It is long past time for the 
Secretary to focus on the accounting of receipts and let those who know 
something about investments handle the actual management of these trust 
funds.

[[Page S3469]]

The present situation simply perpetuates the cycle of dependence for 
too many tribes and denies them the same reasonable expectation of 
return that all non-Indian trust beneficiaries have a right to expect.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 739

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled,
       That the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act 
     (108 Stat. 4239, 25 U.S.C. 4041), as amended, is further 
     amended by adding a new Title V as follows:

              TITLE V--INVESTMENT OF FUNDS--TRIBAL OPTIONS

     SEC. 501. TRIBAL OPTIONS.

       (a) Within one year from the date of enactment of this 
     title, the Secretary, with the advice and assistance of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency, shall contract with qualified 
     financial institutions that are regulated by a federal bank 
     regulatory agency for the investment of all funds presently 
     managed in trust status for Indian tribes and individual 
     Indians by the United States, unless:
       (1) the tribe whose money is held in trust requests in 
     writing that the funds continue to be invested by the 
     Department of the Interior, or
       (2) contracting of the particular fund would be 
     inconsistent with the United States' trust responsibility or 
     would contravene any provision of law specifically related to 
     that particular fund.
       (b) The Secretary shall afford a tribe an opportunity to 
     designate in writing a qualified financial institution to 
     manage its funds. Unless a tribe designates a specific 
     institution, the Secretary shall comply with the provisions 
     of the Buy-Indian Act (25 U.S.C. 47) in the selection of a 
     qualified financial institution pursuant to this title.
       (c) Any contract entered into pursuant to this section 
     shall, at a minimum, include provisions acceptable to the 
     Secretary that will:
       (1) direct that all funds are invested in a manner 
     consistent with the requirements of the prudent investor rule 
     applicable to the financial institution, the fiduciary 
     responsibility of the institution, and the trust 
     responsibility of the Secretary;
       (2) within the requirements of paragraph (1), permit tribes 
     to direct the financial institution regarding the kinds of 
     instruments for investment;
       (3) subject to the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     encourage the investment of funds in ways that directly 
     benefit the affected tribe and Indian community;
       (4) require that the financial institution be liable for 
     any financial losses incurred by the trust beneficiary as a 
     result of its failure to comply with the terms of its 
     contract, the investment instructions provided by the tribe, 
     its general fiduciary obligation, or the prudent investor 
     rule;
       (5) insure that the financial institution carry sufficient 
     insurance or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary to 
     compensate the trust beneficiary in connection with any 
     liability and the Secretary in the event of a subrogation 
     under subsection (d);
       (6) allow the financial institution to recover its 
     reasonable costs incurred in investing trust funds in 
     investment instruments that are 100% guaranteed by the United 
     States and be compensated for investing trust funds in other 
     investment instruments by charging a commercially reasonable 
     fee, approved by the Secretary, that shall be deducted from 
     the corpus of the trust funds in the same manner as for 
     private investors.
       (d) No provision of this title, nor any action taken 
     pursuant thereto, shall in any way diminish the trust 
     responsibility of the United States for any funds presently 
     managed in trust status or to the tribes or individual 
     Indians who are the beneficial owners of such funds. The 
     Secretary shall remain responsible for any losses incurred by 
     a trust beneficiary for which a financial institution is 
     liable under paragraph (c)(4) but shall be entitled to 
     subrogation of any claim to the extent the beneficiary 
     receives compensation from the United States.
       (e) Any amounts transferred shall not result in the closure 
     of the account in question and the Secretary shall be 
     obligated to continue efforts to determine whether the 
     account balance is accurate, including efforts to identify 
     and secure documentation supporting such accounting balance.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Murkowski as an original co-sponsor of legislation to amend the 
American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. This is the 
first step in reforming the way Indian trust funds are managed and 
invested for the benefit of the Indian tribes and their citizens.
  On March 3, 1999, the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing on trust fund 
management practices in the Department of the Interior.
  We held the hearing because the Secretary of the Interior issued an 
order in January that I believe undermined the authority of the Special 
Trustee for American Indians and violated the spirit and letter of the 
1994 Act.
  Nothing at the hearing changed my mind. As a result, I proposed an 
amendment to the FY 1999 Supplemental Appropriations bill to suspend 
the implementation of this order while we sort out the legitimacy and 
effectiveness of ongoing trust management reforms within the 
Department. This should be done through legislation and congressional 
oversight, not secretarial orders drafted with no tribal input.
  Today's bill is the next step. It will enable Congress, Indian 
tribes, and the Administration to begin the difficult task of undoing 
100 years of mismanagement and neglect by the United States.
  Most Americans are unfamiliar with this issue so let me describe what 
we are talking about. Beginning in 1849, the federal government, as 
trustee for the tribes, built a system to identify and track Indian 
land holdings, land leases, income from those leases, and other Indian 
assets, and created ``trust funds'' to be managed for the benefit of 
their Indian beneficiaries.
  Over the years, the United States has failed to keep track of the 
funds and the documents supporting the funds. In addition, the 
Department is prevented by law from investing these funds in anything 
other than U.S.-guaranteed investments which bring returns much lower 
than what is possible in the open market. For these reasons, the 
trustee has failed to adequately maintain this system and to maximize 
returns on investment, with Indians as the predictable losers once 
again. These facts raise the question of whether the federal government 
is the appropriate place for these accounts.
  The money in these accounts, or that is supposed to be in these trust 
fund accounts, is Indian money that has been entrusted to the United 
States. It is not federal money. There are billions of dollars at 
stake: in 1997, the Department's Tribal Reconciliation Project stated 
that it was unable to reconcile some $2.4 billion in tribal funds.
  For Indians that means they have no access to the money and do not 
receive the benefit from their own money.
  There are at least three major aspects to the problem. First, efforts 
by the Department to identify and gather all documentation to determine 
accurate trust fund balances; second, the efforts to put in place new 
computers and management systems; and third, the need to provide Indian 
tribes with the flexibility to maximize the return on fund investments 
in the interim as the first two initiatives continue.
  This legislation is aimed at the third of these problems. As the 
Committees work to fix the mistakes of the past, we can give tribes the 
flexibility and freedom to invest their money in the financial 
instruments they choose. This legislation will allow Indian tribes the 
option to leave their funds with the Department for management and 
investment or to transfer the funds to qualified financial 
institutions, including Indian-owned banks, in order to receive 
competitive returns on investment.
  The bill will direct the Secretary of Interior to consult with the 
nation's top banker, the Comptroller of the Currency, in negotiating 
contracts with federally-approved financial institutions for 
the investment of funds now managed by the United States.

  Let me be clear: tribes are not required to move their accounts into 
the private market. It is an option.
  This bill does not represent a ``surrender'' in the efforts to find 
the missing funds and documents. In fact, just the opposite. Under the 
bill, the Secretary is obligated to continue to search for documents 
that will give a more accurate account balance to the tribes.
  That brings up another troubling issue--the possibility that some 
documents will never be found. It is bad enough that some have been 
permanently lost due to neglect. But a story in today's Washington 
Times raises the possibility that, even worse, some documents may have 
been purposely destroyed. The story says that the plaintiffs suing the 
government over trust funds mismanagement have given the judge 
affidavits accusing Interior Department officials of destroying trust 
fund documents to conceal them from the court.

[[Page S3470]]

  If this is true, it would be the worst violation of the trust 
responsibility in decades.
  I should point out that this bill is the first, not the last, word on 
our efforts to clean up the trust funds mess and to give Indians the 
chance to take risks, generate higher rates of returns, and bring 
economic opportunities where none now exist. Also, this bill is subject 
to change. I welcome input from Indian Country as we work to perfect 
it.
  As Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I am committed to 
working with and assisting the tribes in the many reforms that are 
necessary to bring increased hope and opportunities to their 
communities.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Murkowski and me in bringing 
real reform and real change to Indian trust funds management. After 150 
years, it's about time we think and act boldly to bring this sad 
chapter in American history to a close.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Times 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 25, 1999]

        Interior Officials Accused of Destroying Indian Records

                            (By Jerry Seper)

       Interior Department officials who told a federal judge they 
     could not find records describing the department's oversight 
     of American Indian trust funds have been accused in sworn 
     affidavits of destroying the documents to conceal then from 
     the court.
       U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who held Interior 
     Secretary Bruce Babbitt in contempt last month for not 
     turning over the records in a lawsuit, ordered hearings on 
     the accusations yesterday after being told Tuesday the 
     documents had been deliberately destroyed.
       The suspected destruction was outlined in the affidavits 
     given to the judge during a status hearing in a lawsuit 
     brought by the Native American Rights Fund. The affidavits, 
     brought by some of the many plaintiffs, were later ordered 
     sealed pending yesterday's hearing, although that hearing--
     held in the judge's chambers--was scheduled to resume today.
       The suit by the Rights Fund, which represents several 
     Indian tribes involved in the trust fund, accuses the 
     Interior and Treasury departments of mismanaging trust fund 
     monies.
       In November, Judge Lamberth ordered the departments to 
     produce canceled checks and other documents showing the 
     status of the trust fund, which involves more than 300,000 
     individual accounts and 2,000 tribal accounts. The 
     departments oversee the receipt of money from land 
     settlements, royalties and payments by companies that use 
     Indian land.
       The judge sought the records to allow attorneys for the 
     Rights Fund to prepare for trial. The departments have never 
     complied, giving the judge several reasons for the delay--
     including an Interior claim that some of the records were 
     so tainted by rodent droppings in a New Mexico warehouse 
     that to disturb them would put department officials at a 
     health risk.
       Interior officials have been unable to verify how much cash 
     has been collected. An audit by the Arthur Andersen 
     accounting firm said the Bureau of Indian Affairs cannot 
     account for $2.4 billion in trust funds.
       During a hearing March 3 before the Senate Indian Affairs 
     Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee, Mr. Babbitt promised to correct the situation. 
     ``You'll be the judge. I will do my best,'' Mr. Babbitt said 
     when asked what he intended to do about mismanagement by the 
     BIA.
       Special trustee Paul Homan, assigned to oversee the fund, 
     resigned in January. He said Mr. Babbitt stripped him of the 
     authority he needed to do the job and that he was blocked by 
     Interior officials who sought to undermine congressionally 
     ordered reforms with continual rejections of his requests for 
     money and manpower.
       Mr. Homan said the department could ``no longer be trusted 
     to keep and produce trust records.'' He urged the accounts be 
     assigned to an independent agency.
       Mr. Babbitt ordered a reorganization and requested more 
     funding for next year. He also said a new accounting system 
     was expected to be in place by the end of the year.
       But acting special trustee Thomas Thompson said in a 
     confidential memo last year that he was ``grateful'' he did 
     not run the program. He outlined many concerns he had about 
     an inability to implement the Trust Fund Management Reform 
     Act of 1994. The act directs the department to oversee the 
     fund and provide the necessary budget to do the job.
       Mr. Thompson's memo was written before his appointment as 
     Mr. Homan's successor. He has since told the Indian Affairs 
     Committee that trust funds were being properly administered 
     and that the program was sufficiently funded.
       In a letter to Mr. Babbitt last week, Republication Sens. 
     Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Sen. Frank H. 
     Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee, said they were concerned that Mr. 
     Thompson appeared willing to endorse a process he had 
     criticized.
       ``Before our committees, you vigorously testified about 
     your commitment to clean up the trust fund fiasco,'' they 
     wrote to Mr. Babbitt. ``We are not encouraged, however, when 
     only hours after the hearing, your hand-picked acting trustee 
     seems to reverse himself on an issue critical to the success 
     of this effort.''
       They said if the many problems Mr. Thompson's memo 
     described had been corrected, Mr. Babbitt should list the 
     improvements to the committees.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Grams): 
        S. 740. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to improve the 
        hydroelectric licensing process by granting the Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission statutory authority to better coordinate 
        participation by other agencies and entities, and for other 
        purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        hydroelectric licensing process improvement act of 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I introduce is the Hydroelectric 
Licensing Process Improvement Act of 1999. As its title suggests, the 
purpose of the bill is to improve the process by which non-federal 
hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
  I introduced a similar bill late in the 105th Congress after hearings 
on this issue in both the House and Senate. Hydropower represents ten 
percent of the energy produced in the United States, and approximately 
85% of all renewable energy generation. This, Mr. President, is a 
significant portion of our nation's electricity, produced without air 
pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, and it is accomplished at 
relatively low cost.
  The Commission for many years since its creation in 1920, controlled 
our nation's water power potential with uncompromising authority. 
However, since 1972, a number of environmental statutes, amendments to 
the Federal Power Act, Commission regulations, licensing and policy 
decisions, and several critical court decisions, has made the 
Commission's licensing process extremely costly, time consuming, and, 
at times, arbitrary. Indeed, the current Commission licensing program 
is burdened with mixed mandates and redundant bureaucracy and prone to 
gridlock and litigation.
  Under current law, several federal agencies are required to set 
conditions for licenses without regard to the effects those conditions 
have on project economics, energy benefits, impacts on greenhouse gas 
emissions and values protected by other statutes and regulations. Far 
too often we have agencies fighting agencies and issuing inconsistent 
demands.
  The consequent delays in processing hydropower applications result in 
significant business costs and lost capacity. For example, according to 
a September 1997 study of the U.S. Department of Energy, since 1987, of 
52 peaking projects relicensed by the Commission, four projects 
increased capacity, and 48 decreased capacity. In simple terms, those 
48 projects became less productive as a result of the relicensing 
process at the Commission than they were prior to relicensing. Ninety-
two percent of the peaking projects since 1987 lost capacity.
  In addition, faced with the uncertainties currently plaguing the 
relicensing process, some existing licensees are contemplating 
abandonment of their projects. This is of concern to the nation because 
two-thirds of all non-federal hydropower capacity is up for relicensing 
in the next fifteen years. By the year 2010, 220 projects will be 
subject to the relicensing process.
  Publicly owned hydropower projects constitute nearly 50% of the total 
capacity that will be up for renewal. The problems resulting in lost 
capacity, coupled with the momentous changes occurring in the 
electricity industry and the increasing need for emissions free sources 
of power, all underscore the need for Congressional action to reform 
hydroelectric licensing.
  Moreoever, the loss of a hydropower project means more than the loss 
of clean, efficient, renewable electric power. Hydropower projects 
provide drinking water, flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, 
irrigation, transportation, environmental enhancement

[[Page S3471]]

funding and recreation benefits. Also, due to its unique load-following 
capability, peaking capacity and voltage stability attributes, 
hydropower plays a critical role in maintaining our nation's reliable 
electric service.
  My bill, which is currently co-sponsored by fellow Idahoan Senator 
Mike Crapo, and Senators Conrad Burns and Rod Grams, will remedy the 
inefficient and complex Commission licensing process by ensuring that 
federal agencies involved in the process act in a timely and 
accountable manner.
  My bill does not change or modify any existing environmental laws, 
nor remove regulatory authority from various agencies. It does not call 
for the repeal of mandatory conditioning authority of appropriate 
federal agencies. Rather, it requires participating agencies to 
consider, and be accountable for, the full effects of their actions 
before imposing mandatory conditions on a Commission issued license.
  It is clear to me and many of my colleagues here in the Senate that 
hydropower is at risk. Clearly, one of the most important tasks for 
energy policymakers in the 21st Century is to develop an energy 
strategy that will ensure an adequate supply of reasonably priced, 
reliable energy to all American consumers in an environmentally 
responsible manner. The relicensing of non-federal hydropower can and 
should continue to be an important and viable element in this strategy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 740

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hydroelectric Licensing 
     Process Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) hydroelectric power is an irreplaceable source of 
     clean, economic, renewable energy with the unique capability 
     of supporting reliable electric service while maintaining 
     environmental quality;
       (2) hydroelectric power is the leading renewable energy 
     resource of the United States;
       (3) hydroelectric power projects provide multiple benefits 
     to the United States, including recreation, irrigation, flood 
     control, water supply, and fish and wildlife benefits;
       (4) in the next 15 years, the bulk of all non-Federal 
     hydroelectric power capacity in the United States is due to 
     be relicensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
       (5) the process of licensing hydroelectric projects by the 
     Commission--
       (A) does not produce optimal decisions, because the 
     agencies that participate in the process are not required to 
     consider the full effects of their mandatory and recommended 
     conditions on a license;
       (B) is inefficient, in part because agencies do not always 
     submit their mandatory and recommended conditions by a time 
     certain;
       (C) is burdened by uncoordinated environmental reviews and 
     duplicative permitting authority; and
       (D) is burdensome for all participants and too often 
     results in litigation; and
       (6) while the alternative licensing procedures available to 
     applicants for hydroelectric project licenses provide 
     important opportunities for the collaborative resolution of 
     many of the issues in hydroelectric project licensing, those 
     procedures are not appropriate in every case and cannot 
     substitute for statutory reforms of the hydroelectric 
     licensing process.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to achieve the objective of 
     relicensing hydroelectric power projects to maintain high 
     environmental standards while preserving low cost power by--
       (1) requiring agencies to consider the full effects of 
     their mandatory and recommended conditions on a hydroelectric 
     power license and to document the consideration of a broad 
     range of factors;
       (2) requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
     impose deadlines by which Federal agencies must submit 
     proposed mandatory and recommended conditions to a license; 
     and
       (3) making other improvements in the licensing process.

     SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES OF 
                   CONDITIONS TO LICENSES.

       (a) In General.--Part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     791a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 32. PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES OF 
                   CONDITIONS TO LICENSES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Condition.--The term `condition' means--
       ``(A) a condition to a license for a project on a Federal 
     reservation determined by a consulting agency for the purpose 
     of the first proviso of section 4(e); and
       ``(B) a prescription relating to the construction, 
     maintenance, or operation of a fishway determined by a 
     consulting agency for the purpose of the first sentence of 
     section 18.
       ``(2) Consulting agency.--The term `consulting agency' 
     means--
       ``(A) in relation to a condition described in paragraph 
     (1)(A), the Federal agency with responsibility for 
     supervising the reservation; and
       ``(B) in relation to a condition described in paragraph 
     (1)(B), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
     Commerce, as appropriate.
       ``(b) Factors To Be Considered.--
       ``(1) In general.--In determining a condition, a consulting 
     agency shall take into consideration--
       ``(A) the impacts of the condition on--
       ``(i) economic and power values;
       ``(ii) electric generation capacity and system reliability;
       ``(iii) air quality (including consideration of the impacts 
     on greenhouse gas emissions); and
       ``(iv) drinking, flood control, irrigation, navigation, or 
     recreation water supply;
       ``(B) compatibility with other conditions to be included in 
     the license, including mandatory conditions of other 
     agencies, when available; and
       ``(C) means to ensure that the condition addresses only 
     direct project environmental impacts, and does so at the 
     lowest project cost.
       ``(2) Documentation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the course of the consideration of 
     factors under paragraph (1) and before any review under 
     subsection (e), a consulting agency shall create written 
     documentation detailing, among other pertinent matters, all 
     proposals made, comments received, facts considered, and 
     analyses made regarding each of those factors sufficient to 
     demonstrate that each of the factors was given full 
     consideration in determining the condition to be submitted to 
     the Commission.
       ``(B) Submission to the commission.--A consulting agency 
     shall include the documentation under subparagraph (A) in its 
     submission of a condition to the Commission.
       ``(c) Scientific Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each condition determined by a 
     consulting agency shall be subjected to appropriately 
     substantiated scientific review.
       ``(2) Data.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), a condition 
     shall be considered to have been subjected to appropriately 
     substantiated scientific review if the review--
       ``(A) was based on current empirical data or field-tested 
     data; and
       ``(B) was subjected to peer review.
       ``(d) Relationship to Impacts on Federal Reservation.--In 
     the case of a condition for the purpose of the first proviso 
     of section 4(e), each condition determined by a consulting 
     agency shall be directly and reasonably related to the 
     impacts of the project within the Federal reservation.
       ``(e) Administrative Review.--
       ``(1) Opportunity for review.--Before submitting to the 
     Commission a proposed condition, and at least 90 days before 
     a license applicant is required to file a license application 
     with the Commission, a consulting agency shall provide the 
     proposed condition to the license applicant and offer the 
     license applicant an opportunity to obtain expedited review 
     before an administrative law judge or other independent 
     reviewing body of--
       ``(A) the reasonableness of the proposed condition in light 
     of the effect that implementation of the condition will have 
     on the energy and economic values of a project; and
       ``(B) compliance by the consulting agency with the 
     requirements of this section, including the requirement to 
     consider the factors described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(2) Completion of review.--
       ``(A) In general.--A review under paragraph (1) shall be 
     completed not more than 180 days after the license applicant 
     notifies the consulting agency of the request for review.
       ``(B) Failure to make timely completion of review.--If 
     review of a proposed condition is not completed within the 
     time specified by subparagraph (A), the Commission may treat 
     a condition submitted by the consulting agency as a 
     recommendation is treated under section 10(j).
       ``(3) Remand.--If the administrative law judge or reviewing 
     body finds that a proposed condition is unreasonable or that 
     the consulting agency failed to comply with any of the 
     requirements of this section, the administrative law judge or 
     reviewing body shall--
       ``(A) render a decision that--
       ``(i) explains the reasons for a finding that the condition 
     is unreasonable and may make recommendations that the 
     administrative law judge or reviewing body may have for the 
     formulation of a condition that would not be found 
     unreasonable; or
       ``(ii) explains the reasons for a finding that a 
     requirement was not met and may describe any action that the 
     consulting agency should take to meet the requirement; and
       ``(B) remand the matter to the consulting agency for 
     further action.
       ``(4) Submission to the commission.--Following 
     administrative review under this subsection, a consulting 
     agency shall--
       ``(A) take such action as is necessary to--
       ``(i) withdraw the condition;

[[Page S3472]]

       ``(ii) formulate a condition that follows the 
     recommendation of the administrative law judge or reviewing 
     body; or
       ``(iii) otherwise comply with this section; and
       ``(B) include with its submission to the Commission of a 
     proposed condition--
       ``(i) the record on administrative review; and
       ``(ii) documentation of any action taken following 
     administrative review.
       ``(f) Submission of Final Condition.--
       ``(1) In general.--After an applicant files with the 
     Commission an application for a license, the Commission shall 
     set a date by which a consulting agency shall submit to the 
     Commission a final condition.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     date for submission of a final condition shall be not later 
     than 1 year after the date on which the Commission gives the 
     consulting agency notice that a license application is ready 
     for environmental review.
       ``(3) Default.--If a consulting agency does not submit a 
     final condition to a license by the date set under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) the consulting agency shall not thereafter have 
     authority to recommend or establish a condition to the 
     license; and
       ``(B) the Commission may, but shall not be required to, 
     recommend or establish an appropriate condition to the 
     license that--
       ``(i) furthers the interest sought to be protected by the 
     provision of law that authorizes the consulting agency to 
     propose or establish a condition to the license; and
       ``(ii) conforms to the requirements of this Act.
       ``(4) Extension.--The Commission may make 1 extension, of 
     not more than 30 days, of a deadline set under paragraph (1).
       ``(g) Analysis By the Commission.--
       ``(1) Economic analysis.--The Commission shall conduct an 
     economic analysis of each condition submitted by a consulting 
     agency to determine whether the condition would render the 
     project uneconomic.
       ``(2) Consistency with this section.--In exercising 
     authority under section 10(j)(2), the Commission shall 
     consider whether any recommendation submitted under section 
     10(j)(1) is consistent with the purposes and requirements of 
     subsections (b) and (c) of this section.
       ``(h) Commission Determination on Effect of Conditions.--
     When requested by a license applicant in a request for 
     rehearing, the Commission shall make a written determination 
     on whether a condition submitted by a consulting agency--
       ``(1) is in the public interest, as measured by the impact 
     of the condition on the factors described in subsection 
     (b)(1);
       ``(2) was subjected to scientific review in accordance with 
     subsection (c);
       ``(3) relates to direct project impacts within the 
     reservation, in the case of a condition for the first proviso 
     of section 4(e);
       ``(4) is reasonable;
       ``(5) is supported by substantial evidence; and
       ``(6) is consistent with this Act and other terms and 
     conditions to be included in the license.''.
       (b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 4.--Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 797(e)) is amended--
       (A) in the first proviso of the first sentence by inserting 
     after ``conditions'' the following: ``, determined in 
     accordance with section 32,''; and
       (B) in the last sentence, by striking the period and 
     inserting ``(including consideration of the impacts on 
     greenhouse gas emissions)''.
       (2) Section 18.--Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 811) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce'' and inserting 
     ``prescribed, in accordance with section 32, by the Secretary 
     of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as 
     appropriate''.

     SEC. 5. COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.

       Part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) 
     (as amended by section 3) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 33. COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.

       ``(a) Lead Agency Responsibility.--The Commission, as the 
     lead agency for environmental reviews under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
     projects licensed under this part, shall conduct a single 
     consolidated environmental review--
       ``(1) for each such project; or
       ``(2) if appropriate, for multiple projects located in the 
     same area
       ``(b) Consulting Agencies.--In connection with the 
     formulation of a condition in accordance with section 32, a 
     consulting agency shall not perform any environmnental review 
     in addition to any environmental review performed by the 
     Commission in connection with the action to which the 
     condition relates.
       ``(c) Deadlines.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall set a deadline for 
     the submission of comments by Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies in connection with the preparation of any 
     environmental impact statement or environmental assessment 
     required for a project.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In setting a deadline under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall take into consideration--
       ``(A) the need of the license applicant for a prompt and 
     reasonable decision;
       ``(B) the resources of interested Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies; and
       ``(C) applicable statutory requirements.''.

     SEC. 6. STUDY OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Commerce 
     of the House of Representatives a study of the feasibility of 
     establishing a separate licensing procedure for small 
     hydroelectric projects.
       (b) Definition of Small Hydroelectric Project.--The 
     Commission may by regulation define the term ``small 
     hydroelectric project'' for the purpose of subsection (a), 
     except that the term shall include at a minimum a 
     hydroelectric project that has a generating capacity of 5 
     megawatts or less.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Robb, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        Bond, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 741. A bill to provide for pension reform, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                  pension coverage and portability act

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators 
Grassley, Baucus, Hatch, Breaux, Jeffords, Kerrey, Mack, Robb, 
Murkowski, Chafee, Thompson, Bond, and Bingaman to introduce the 
Pension Coverage and Portability Act. I am honored to be here today, in 
a bipartisan group, and especially with my colleague Senator Charles 
Grassley, who has put a tremendous effort into crafting many parts of 
this bill. He and I recognize that for our nation to solve what will be 
one of this generation's greatest challenges, building retirement 
security for today's workers, we need to move in a common sense, 
bipartisan fashion.
  Many of the original cosponsors of this bill were key in crafting 
sections of this legislation over the last three years. Senator 
Grassley's efforts here have expanded fairness for women and families, 
and focuses on the benefits of retirement education.
  Senator Baucus has brought the ideas that expand pension coverage and 
ease the administrative burdens on America's small businesses.
  Portability, so important as we become a more mobile society, 
received the attention of Senator Jeffords.
  All businesses will have the hard work of Senator Hatch to thank for 
many of the regulatory relief, and administrative simplification 
elements of this bill.
  Senator Breaux focused on the ``big picture'' of retirement security 
by authoring the ESOP provisions.
  And finally, Senators Kerrey and Robb provided valuable new input 
that helped shape his legislation.
  Throughout the process of putting this bill together, our main task 
has been to listen. We have listened at town hall meetings, at the 
Retirement Security Summit I held last year in Tampa, and a Women's 
Summit I held in Orlando last April. I am also planning another 
Retirement Security Summit in Jacksonville this May to continue the 
dialogue on this important issue.
  The ideas have come from pension actuaries, tax attorneys, Cabinet 
leaders, and some of the best ideas, from everyday people.
  With reason, some of the public debate recently has focused on 
President Clinton's mantra ``Save Social Security First.'' And we all 
agree, on both sides of the aisle, that we need to ensure that social 
security is as viable for my nine grandchildren as it was for may 
parents and will be for me.
  However, social security is only one part of the picture. Pensions 
and personal savings will make up an ever increasing part of retirement 
security. So when Congress takes action to ensure the future of social 
security, we are only addressing one-third of the problem.
  Social Security may play less of a role for each generation. We must 
develop personal savings, and we must have years of work pay off in 
workers vesting in pensions.
  Our bill will help hard working Americans build personal retirement 
savings through their employers, through 401(k)s, through payroll 
deduction IRAs, and through higher limits on savings.

[[Page S3473]]

  Employers and workers both win. Employers get simpler pension systems 
with less administrative burden, and more loyal employees. And workers 
build secure retirement and watch savings accumulate over years of 
work.

  We need to be able to offer business owners and their workers: 
uncumbersome portability, administrative simplicity, and the confidence 
that their plans are secure and well funded.
  To achieve this goal, we focused on six areas: simplification, 
portability, expanded coverage for small business, pension security and 
enforcement, women's equity issues, and expanding retirement planning 
and education opportunities.
  The largest section of this legislation deals with expanded coverage 
for small business. It's the largest section because small businesses 
have the greatest difficulty achieving retirement security. 51 million 
American workers have no retirement plan, 21 million of these employees 
work in small businesses.
  The problem: statistics indicate that only a small percentage of 
workers in firms of less than 100 employees have access to a retirement 
plan. We take a step forward in eliminating one of the first hurdles 
that a small business faces when it establishes a pension plan. On one 
hand, the federal government is encouraging these businesses to start 
pension plans, and then we turn around and charge the small business, 
at times, up to one thousand dollars to register their plan with the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  The solution: eliminate this fee for small businesses. We need to 
encourage small businesses to start plans, not discourage them with 
high registration fees.
  Another problem for small businesses and others is people postponing 
retirement decisions until a later date. Many young people in their 
20's and 30's don't think they need to worry about retirement security 
``right now,'' it's a decision that can wait for later.
  Our solution to this is to encourage businesses to have ``opt out'' 
plans for retirement savings. Instead of the worker having to actively 
decide to participate and fill out paperwork, he or she is 
automatically participating unless they actively decide not to.
  Another problem this legislation addresses: retirement security for 
women and families. Historically speaking, women live longer than men, 
therefore, need greater savings for retirement. Yet our pension and 
retirement laws do not reflect this. Women are more mobile than men, 
moving in and out of the workforce due to family responsibilities, thus 
they have less of a chance to vest. Fewer than 32% of all women 
retirees receive a pension. Currently two-thirds of working women are 
employed in sectors of the economy that are unlikely to have a 
retirement plan: service and retail, and small business.
  In an effort to address one of the problems--preparing for a longer 
life expectancy, we realistically adjust upwards the age in which you 
must start withdrawing funds.
  Under current law, you must start withdrawing money from retirement 
plans at age seventy-and-a-half. However, a woman at age seventy can 
still have three decades in retirement. I know, because I represent 
many of them in Florida. At the Retirement Summit I hosted in Tampa, 
Florida, several retirees mentioned that they wanted to keep this money 
in retirement savings for as long as possible. We raise the seventy-
and-a-half age to seventy-five for mandatory minimum distributions.
  Second, we say that $100,000 of any IRA will be exempt from minimum 
distribution rules. This accomplishes two important goals: simplifying 
the bureaucracy for thousands of Americans who have less than this 
balance, and protecting a vital nest egg for the last years of 
retirement so that long term care and other expenses can be covered.
  Another problem addressed in this section of the legislation is the 
mobility of our workforce. On average, Americans will have 7 different 
employers during their career which means they are often not at any job 
long enough to vest into retirement benefits.
  Our legislation offers a solution--shrinking the 5 year vesting cycle 
to a three year cycle. We believe this is more reflective of job tenure 
in the 1990's and on into the next century.
  As I mentioned earlier, the current U.S. worker will have seven 
different employers. We have the possibility of a generation of 
American workers who will retire with many small accounts--creating a 
complex maze of statements and features, different for each account. 
This is a problem--pensions should be portable from job to job.
  One solution to this problem--allow employees to roll one retirement 
account into another as they move from job to job so that when they 
retire, they will have one retirement account. It's easier to monitor, 
less complicated to keep track of, and builds a more secure retirement 
for the worker.
  Portability is important, but we must also reduce the red tape. The 
main obstacle that companies face in establishing retirement programs 
is bureaucratic administrative burden. For example: for small plans, it 
costs $228 per person per year just to comply with all the forms, tests 
and regulations.
  We have a common sense remedy to one of the most vexing problems in 
pension administration: figuring out how much money to contribute to 
the company's plan. It's a complex formula of facts, statistics and 
assumptions. We want to be able to say to plans that have no problem 
with underfunding: to help make these calculations, you can use the 
prior year's data to help make the proper contribution. You don't have 
to re-sort through the numbers each and every year. If your plan is 
sound, use reliable data from the previous year, and then verify when 
all the final details are available. Companies will be able to 
calculate, and then budget accordingly--and not wait until figures and 
rates out of their control are released by outside sources.
  I have said time and time again today that Americans are not saving, 
but those who are oftentimes hit limits on the amounts they can save. 
The problem is that most of these limits were established more than 20 
years ago. Currently, for example, in a 401(k) plan the IRS limits the 
amount an employee can contribute to $10,000 a year.
  Our solution is to raise that limit to $12,000, along with raising 
many other limits that affect savings in order to build a more secure 
retirement for working Americans.
  The building of retirement security will also take some education. 
One of the major reasons Americans do not prepare for retirement is 
that they don't understand what benefits are available and what 
benefits they are acquiring.
  Our solution to this dilemma is regular and easy to read benefit 
statements from employers reminding workers early in their career of 
the importance of retirement savings. These statements would clarify 
what benefits workers are accruing. And from this information each 
American will more easily be able to determine the personal savings 
they need in order to build a sound retirement.
  With the introduction of this legislation today it is my goal to 
ensure that each American who works hard for thirty or forty years has 
gotten every opportunity for a secure and comfortable retirement.
  I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard with me on this 
measure, and ask for the support of those in this Chamber on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator 
Graham, to introduce bipartisan pension reform legislation. This 
legislation, the Pension Coverage and Portability Act, will go a long 
way toward improving the pension system in this country.
  Ideally, pension benefits should compromise about a third of a 
retired worker's income. But pension benefits make up only about one-
fifth of the income in elderly households. Obviously, workers are 
reaching retirement with too little income from an employer pension. 
Workers who are planning for their retirement will need more pension 
income to make up for a lower Social Security benefit and to fit with 
longer life expectancies. While we have seen a small increase in the 
number of workers who are expected to receive a pension in retirement, 
only one half of our workforce is covered by a pension plan.
  There is a tremendous gap in pension coverage between small employers 
and

[[Page S3474]]

large employers. Eighty-five percent of the companies with at least 100 
workers offer pension coverage. Companies with less than 100 workers 
are much less likely to offer pension coverage. Only about 50 percent 
of the companies with less than 100 workers offer pension coverage. In 
order to close the gap in coverage between small and large employers, 
we need to understand the reasons small employers do not offer pension 
plans. Last year, the Employee Benefit Institute released to Small 
Employer Retirement Survey which was very instructive for legislators.
  The survey identified the three main reasons employers gave for not 
offering a plan. The first reason is that small employer believe that 
employees prefer increased wages or other types of benefits. The second 
reason employers don't offer plans is the administrative cost. And the 
third most important reason for not offering a plan: uncertain revenue, 
which makes it difficult to commit to a plan.
  Combine these barriers with the responsibilities of a small employer, 
and we can understand why coverage among small employers has not 
increased. Small employers who may just be starting out in business are 
already squeezing every penny. These employers are also people who open 
up to the business in the morning, talk to customers, do the marketing, 
pay the bills, and just do not know how they can take on the additional 
duties, responsibilies, and liabilities of sponsoring a pension plan.
  I firmly believe that an increase in the number of people covered by 
pension plans will occur only when small employers have more 
substantial incentives to establish pension plans. The Pension Coverage 
and Portability Act contains provisions which will provide more 
flexibility for small employees, relief from burdensome rules and 
regulations, and a tax incentive to start new plans for their 
employees. One of the new top heavy provisions we have endorsed is an 
exemption from top heavy rules for employers who adopt the 401(k) safe 
harbor. This safe harbor takes effect this year. When the Treasury 
Department wrote the regulations and considered whether safe harbor 
plans should also have to satisfy the top heavy rules, they answered in 
the affirmative. As a result, a small employer would have to make a 
contribution of 7 percent of pay for each employee, a very costly 
proposition.
  My colleagues and I also have included a provision which repeals user 
fees for new plan sponsors seeking determination letters from IRS. 
These fees can run from $100 to more than $1,000 depending on the type 
of plan. Given the need to promote retirement plan formation, we 
believe this ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' approach needs to be eliminated.
  We have also looked at the lack of success of SIMPLE 401(k) plans. A 
survey by the Investment Company Institute found that SIMPLE IRAs have 
proven successful, with almost 340,000 workers participating in a plan. 
However, SIMPLE 401(k)s haven't enjoyed the same success. One reason 
may be that the limits on SIMPLE 401(k)s are tighter than for the IRAs. 
Our bill equalizes the compensation limits for these plan; in addition, 
we have increased the annual limit on SIMPLE to $8,000.
  One of the more revolutionary proposals is the creation of a Salary 
Reduction SIMPLE with a limit of $4,000. Unlike other SIMPLEs, the 
employer makes no match or automatic contributions. The employer match 
is usually a strong incentive for a low-income employee to participate 
in a savings plan. We hope that small employers will look at this 
SIMPLE as a transition plan, in place for just a couple of year during 
the initial stage of business operation-- then adopt a more expansive 
plan when the business is profitable.

  A provision that was included in last year's legislation, the 
negative election trust or ``NET'' has been modified to address some 
practical administrative issues. What is the NET? Basically, it is a 
new type of safe harbor that would allow employers to automatically 
enroll employees in pension plans. Often, employees do not join the 
pension plan as soon as they begin employment with a new employer. If 
employees are left to their own devices, they may delay participating 
in the pension plan or even worse, never participate. This new safe 
harbor eases the nondiscrimination rules for employers who establish 
the NET if they achieve a participation rate of 70 percent.
  The other targeted areas in the legislation include enhancing pension 
coverage for women. Women are more at risk of living in poverty as they 
age. They need more ways to save because of periodic departures from 
the workforce. To increase their saving capacity, we have included a 
proposal similar to legislation I sponsored earlier this year, S. 60, 
the Enhanced Savings Opportunities Act. Like S. 60, the proposal 
repeals the 25 percent of salary contribution limit on defined 
contribution plans. This limit has seriously impeded savings by women, 
as well as low- and mid-salary employees. Repealing the 25 percent cap 
in 415(c) is a simplifier, and will allow anyone covered by a defined 
contribution plan to benefit.
  The bill also contains proposals which promote new opportunities to 
roll over accounts from an old employer to a new employer. The lack of 
portability among plans is one of the weak links in our current pension 
system. This new bill contains technical improvements which will help 
ease the implementation of portability among the different types of 
defined contribution plans.
  Finally, I would like to point out a couple of other provisions in 
the bill. The first is the new requirement that plan sponsors 
automatically provide benefit statements to their participants on a 
periodic basis. For defined contribution plans, the statement would be 
required annually. For defined benefit plans, a statement would be 
required every three years. However, employers who provide an annual 
notice to employees of the availability of a benefit statement would 
not be required to provide automatic benefit statements to all 
employees.
  Providing clear and understandable benefit statements to pension plan 
participants would encourage people to think about how much money they 
can expect to receive in retirement. Further, a benefit statement will 
help people ensure that the information their employer maintains about 
them is accurate.
  This provision joins other proposals in a section targeted at 
encouraging retirement education. Education can make a difference to 
workers. In fact, in companies which provide investment education, we 
know workers benefitted because many of them changed their investment 
allocations to more accurately reflect their investment horizons.
  The bill also looks to simplify and repeal some of the legal 
requirements which threaten plan security and increase costs for 
employers who sponsor pension plans. For example, the legislation seeks 
to repeal the full-funding limit. This limit prevents employers from 
pre-funding their defined benefit plans based on projected benefits. 
Instead, employers are limited to an amount that would allow them to 
pay the accrued benefits if the plan terminated. This lower funding 
level threatens the ability of employers to pay benefits, especially as 
the Baby Boom begins to retire.
  To reduce the burdens of plan compliance, the legislation includes a 
number of proposals intended to peel away at the layers of laws and 
regulations that add costs to plan administration but don't add many 
benefits.
  This legislation joins other strong proposals now pending in the 
House and here in the Senate. This legislation includes provisions 
which reflect some of those same proposals. I want to commend the 
sponsors of those bills. Our legislation has a lot in common with these 
other pension bills and we need to push for fast and favorable 
consideration of this legislation.
  We have a window of opportunity to act. The Baby Boomers are coming. 
The letters from AARP are starting to arrive in their mailboxes. The 
Social Security Administration is starting to stagger the delivery of 
benefit checks in preparation for their retirement. It is likely that 
future retirees will not be able to rely on all of the benefits now 
provided by Social Security. We can look to the pension system to pick 
up where Social Security leaves off, but we need to act.
  I thank the other co-sponsors of this legislation for all of their 
work, and I encourage our colleagues to give strong

[[Page S3475]]

consideration to co-sponsoring this bill. We already have a substantial 
number of Senate Finance Committee members, including Baucus, Breaux, 
Jeffords, Hatch, Kerrey, Thompson, Mack, Chafee, Robb, and Murkowski. I 
am also very pleased to have Senator Bond come aboard as a co-sponsor. 
As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, he is very aware of the 
problems we are trying to address in this legislation. We also have 
added Senator Jeff Bingaman as a co-sponsor.
  I also want to recognize the groups that have worked with us over the 
last three years to develop this legislation. These organizations 
include: the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council, the Association of Private 
Pension & Welfare Plans, the ERISA Industry Council, and the Retirement 
Security Network which includes a large number of organizations who 
have all been important to our work.
  With concerted, bipartisan action, we can improve the pension system. 
Pensions for today's workers will substantially improve the retirement 
outlook for millions of Americans. But we have some work to do if 
pensions are going to fulfill their promise.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 742. A bill to clarify the requirements for the accession to the 
World Trade Organization of the People's Republic of China; to the 
Committee on Finance.


Legislation To Clarify the Requirements for the Accession to the World 
          Trade Organization of the People's Republic of China

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, hearings on agricultural trade issues 
with the People's Republic of China that I chaired on March 15, 1999 in 
the International Trade Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance 
highlighted the enormous significance to the United States of China's 
possible accession to the World Trade Organization.
  As President Gerald Ford stated in a letter that I released during 
the hearing, ``The terms of any deal that we reach now with China about 
access to its markets may well determine the course of Sino-American 
economic relations for decades to come. If economic relations are not 
resolved constructively, there will be adverse developments 
diplomatically and politically between our two nations.''
  We have just one opportunity to make sure that any market access 
agreement that we reach with China in the context of WTO accession 
talks gives the United States unrestricted entry to China's markets. 
That opportunity is now. And we can do that only if Congress asserts 
its constitutional responsibility to regulate foreign commerce and 
reviews any deal negotiated by the administration before China is 
admitted to the WTO.
  It is for this reason that today I introduce legislation to clarify 
the requirements for the accession to the World Trade Organization of 
the People's Republic of China.
  This legislation will do three things.
  First, it clarifies the requirement in current law that the United 
States Trade Representative must consult with the Congress prior to 
casting a vote in favor of China's admission to the WTO. Under current 
law, the Administration could conceivably ``consult'' with the Congress 
minutes before casting a vote in the WTO Ministerial Conference or the 
WTO General Council to admit China. This bill says that Congress shall 
have at least 60 days to review all the relevant documents related to 
China's possible accession before a vote is taken.
  Second, this legislation specifies the exact documents that the 
Administration must give to Congress for its review.
  Finally, Congress shall have the opportunity to vote on China's 
admission to the WTO before China can be admitted.
  This is an issue of historic importance, and enormous consequence. 
But unless the law is changed, I won't even have the chance to vote on 
whether the agreement negotiated for China's accession is good for 
Iowa, and good for America. My job in Congress is to make these tough 
decisions, not avoid them.
  Mr. President, I believe that it would be the right thing for China 
to join the world trade community's official forum, and be subject to 
the discipline of multilateral trade rules. For fifty years, the WTO, 
and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, has 
eliminated literally tens of thousands of tariff and non-tariff trade 
barriers. The result has been a dramatic increase in our collective 
prosperity, and a strengthening of world peace.
  But China--or any other nation--should not be admitted to the WTO for 
political reasons. If the terms that we negotiate for China's accession 
are good terms, then China's accession will stand on its own merits. If 
the terms are not acceptable, if they don't guarantee unrestricted 
market access, then China should not be admitted. It's that simple.
  I encourage all my colleagues to join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S. 743, a bill to require prior congressional approval before the 
United States supports the admission of the People's Republic of China 
into the World Trade Organization, and to provide for the withdrawal of 
the United States from the World Trade Organization if China is 
accepted into the WTO without the support of the United States; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                  world trade organization legislation

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for some time, many aspects of 
the U.S.-China relationship have concerned me. Since China's entrance 
into the WTO will be the most significant U.S.-China negotiation in the 
next several years, the contentious U.S.-China issues should be moving 
toward resolution before the conclusion of any agreement. 
Unfortunately, that is not currently the case. Most relevant to the WTO 
process is the exploding US-China trade deficit. In 1998, it reached a 
record $56.9 billion dollars. In fact, U.S. export to both Singapore 
($15.6 billion) and Holland ($19 billion) were greater than exports to 
China ($14.2 billion). At the beginning of the decade, the deficit was 
a problematic but manageable $12.5 billion. Conversely, our large 
trading partners (the Europeans and Japan) have managed to maintain a 
relative trade balance with there Chinese counterparts. In fact, all of 
China's trade surplus is accounted for by the enormous imbalance with 
the United States.
  Moreover, the continuing problems with Chinese human rights 
violations, espionage and possible technology transfers suggest that 
this is not the appropriate time for China to enter the WTO. Recently, 
the State Department released its annual human rights report concluding 
that the situation in China has degraded significantly over the past 
year. Additionally, we remain troubled by the allegations regarding the 
possible illegal transfer of technology to China, as well as lingering 
questions over Chinese espionage and involvement in U.S. elections. Any 
trade agreement with China would be premature before these issues are 
resolved.
  Although none of these concerns are new, the Administration's efforts 
to resolve these issues have been unfortunately unsuccessful. 
Regretably, in fact, the pace of the China WTO negotiations appears to 
have increased. As a result, we believe that this legislation is both 
appropriate and timely. Congress must review any agreement, and all of 
the surrounding negotiations to ensure that it reflects traditional 
American values while protecting American interest.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 744. A bill to provide for the continuation of higher education 
through the conveyance of certain public lands in the State of Alaska 
to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA LAND GRANT ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the University of Alaska (the 
University) is Alaska's oldest post-secondary school. The University 
was chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in 
educating Alaskans as well as students from around the world in the 
United States' only arctic and sub-arctic environment. Additionally, 
the University has served as an important

[[Page S3476]]

cornerstone in Alaska's history. For example, the University housed the 
Alaska Constitutional Convention where the fathers of statehood carved 
out the rights and privileges guaranteed to Alaska's citizens. Further, 
the University of Alaska is proud of the fact that it began life as the 
Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, Mr. President, what 
makes the University of Alaska truly unique is the fact that it is the 
only land grant college in the Nation that is virtually landless.
  As my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected ways of 
financing America's educational system has been the land grant system. 
Established in 1785, this practice gives land to schools and 
universities for their use in supporting their educational endeavors. 
In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act which created the land grant 
colleges and universities as a way to underwrite the cost of higher 
education to more and more Americans. These colleges and universities 
received land from the federal government for facility location and, 
more importantly, as a way to provide sustaining revenues to these 
educational institutions.
  The University of Alaska received the smallest amount of land of any 
state, with the exception of Delaware, that has a land grant college. 
Even the land grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the 
federal government than has the University of Alaska. In a state the 
size of Alaska, we should logically have one of the best and most fully 
funded land grant colleges in the country. Unfortunately, without the 
land promised under the land grant allocation system and earlier 
legislation, the University is unable to share as one of the premier 
land grant colleges in the country.
  Previous efforts in Congress were made to fix this problem. These 
efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the 
Morrill Act, when Alaska's Delegate James Wickersham shepherded a 
measure through Congress that set aside potentially more than a quarter 
of a million acres, in the Tanana Valley outside of Fairbanks, for the 
support of an agricultural college and school of mines. Following the 
practice established in the lower 48 for other land grant colleges, 
Wickersham's bill set aside every Section 33 of the unsurveyed Tanana 
Valley for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines. 
Alaska's educational future looked very bright.
  Many Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system 
similar to that established by the University of Washington in the 
downtown center of Seattle, where valuable University lands are leased 
and provide funding for the University of Washington which uses those 
revenues in turn to provide for its programs and facilities.
  Mr. President, before that land could be transferred to the Alaska 
Agricultural College and School of Mines (renamed the University of 
Alaska in 1935), the land had to be surveyed in order to establish the 
exact acreage included in the reserved land. The sections reserved for 
education could not be transferred to the College until they had been 
delineated. According to records of the time, it was unlikely, given 
the incredibly slow speed of surveying, that the land could be 
completely surveyed before the 21st century. Surveying was and is an 
extraordinarily slow process in Alaska's remote and unpopulated 
terrain. In all, only 19 section 33's--approximately 11,211 acres--were 
ever transferred to the University. Of this amount, 2,250 were used for 
the original campus and the remainder was left to support educational 
opportunities.
  Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent 
legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit 
of the University. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres and 
to this day comprises the bulk of the University's roughly 112,000 
acres of land--less than one third of what it was originally promised. 
In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the 
original land grants for all lands that remained unsurveyed. Thus, the 
University was left with little land with which to support itself and 
thus is unable to completely fulfill its mission as a land grant 
college.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would redeem 
the promises made to the University in 1915 and put it on an even 
footing with the other land grant colleges in the United States. The 
bill provides the University with the land needed to support itself 
financially and offers it the chance to grow and continue to act as a 
responsible steward of the land and educator of our young people. The 
legislation also provides a concrete timetable under which the 
University must select its lands and the Secretary of the Interior must 
act upon those selections.
  This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land 
the University can select. The University cannot select land located 
within a Conservation System Unit. The University cannot select old 
growth timber lands in the Tongass National Forest. Finally, the 
University cannot select land validly conveyed to the State or an ANCSA 
corporation, or land used in connection with federal or military 
institutions.
  Additionally, under my bill the University must relinquish extremely 
valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its state/federal 
selection awarded under Section 2, of this bill. Therefore, the result 
of this legislation will mean the relinquishment of prime University 
inholdings in such magnificent areas as the Alaska Peninsula & Maritime 
National Wildlife Refuge, The Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St. 
Elias National Park and Preserve, and Denali Park and Preserve. So, Mr. 
President, not only does this bill uphold a decades old promise to the 
University of Alaska, it further protects Alaska's parks and refuges.
  Specifically, this bill would grant the University 250,000 acres of 
federal land. Additionally, the University would be eligible to receive 
an additional 250K acres on a matching basis with the state for a total 
of 500K additional acres. This, obviously, would be done through the 
state legislative process involving the Governor, the Legislature, and 
the University's Board of Regents.
  Mr. President, the state matching provision is an important component 
of this legislation. Most agree with the premise that the University 
was shorted land. However, some believe it is solely the responsibility 
of the federal government to compensate the University with land while 
others believe it is solely the responsibility of the state to grant 
the University land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a 
compromise giving both the state and the federal government the 
opportunity to contribute while at the same time providing the federal 
government with valuable inholdings in parks and refuges.
  Finally, this bill contains a provision that incorporates a concept 
put forth by the Governor of Alaska. This provision directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to attempt to conclude an agreement with the 
University and the Governor of Alaska providing for sharing NPRA 
leasing revenues in lieu of land selections north of latitude 69 
degrees North. The provision restricts any agreement regarding revenue 
sharing to prevent the University from obtaining more than ten percent 
of such annual revenues or more than nine million dollars each fiscal 
year. If an agreement is reached and provides for disposition of some 
portion of NPRA mineral leasing revenues to the University, the 
Secretary shall submit the proposed agreement to Congress for 
ratification. If the Secretary fails to reach an agreement within two 
years of enactment, or if Congress fails to ratify such agreement 
within three years from enactment, the University may select up to 
92,000 of its 250,000 initial land grant from lands within NPRA north 
of latitude 69.
  Therefore, this bill has been substantially changed from versions 
introduced in previous Congresses in two dramatic ways. First, in 
response to concerns from the Administration and environmental 
organizations the old growth areas of the Tongass National Forest are 
off limits for selection by the University. The only areas of the 
Tongass that could be selected by the University are those areas 
previously harvested. It is important that the University be allowed to 
select lands in this area as having the ability to study and manage as 
such areas are important tools for the University's School of Forestry.
  The second substantial change to the bill, which was previously 
noted, is the

[[Page S3477]]

revenue sharing component. This aspect provides an alternative means of 
providing for the needs of the University.
  With the passage of this bill, the University of Alaska will finally 
be able to act fully as a land grant college. It will be able to select 
lands that can provide the University with a stable revenue source as 
well as provide responsible stewardship for the land.
  This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promise 
that was made more than 80 years ago could be fulfilled by passage of 
this legislation and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright 
future for the University of Alaska and those who receive an education 
there.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grams, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Graham, Mr. Burns, Mr. McCain, Ms. Snowe, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Craig, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Mack, Mr. Smith of 
        Oregon, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 745. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to modify the requirements for 
implementation of an entry-exit control system; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


             BORDER IMPROVEMENT AND IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999. I would like to express my 
thanks to Senators Kennedy, Grams, Leahy, Graham, Burns, McCain, Snowe, 
DeWine, Jeffords, Gorton, Craig, Levin, Schumer, Murray, Murkowski, 
Moynihan, Mack, Smith (OR), Dorgan, Santorum, Cochran, and Inouye for 
being original cosponsors of this legislation. The legislation will 
correct an unfortunate provision--Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration 
Act. In correcting this provision, this legislation will prevent the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service from effectively shutting down 
our borders to trade and tourism. The legislation has wide support and 
appeal and is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National 
Association of Manufacturers, American Trucking Association, American 
Hotel and Motel Association, Travel Industry Association of America, 
Border Trade Alliance, American Association of Exporters and Importers, 
National Automobile Transporters Association, Fresh Produce Association 
of the Americas, American Association of Port Authorities, 
International Mass Retail Association, American Immigration Lawyers 
Association, International Warehouse Logistics Association, National 
Tour Association, Passenger Vessel Association and the U.S. Hispanic 
Chamber of Commerce.
  As a number of my colleagues are aware, Mr. President, in 1996 both 
the House and the Senate versions of the omnibus immigration bill 
contained differing provisions requiring collection of data on those 
entering and exiting the United States at certain airports. In 
conference, without any debate, a mandatory entry-exit system to 
capture the records of ``every alien'' was added to that legislation.
  Representative Smith and Senator Simpson, chairmen of the respective 
House and Senate Subcommittees responsible for 1996 legislation, have 
both agreed in an exchange of letters with the Canadian Ambassador that 
this provision, ``Section 110'' of the bill, was not intended to cover, 
for example, Canadians at the northern border. However, because of the 
term ``every alien,'' the INS has interpreted the law to require this 
program be implemented at all land borders, in addition to air and sea 
ports of entry. To the credit of the INS, it concedes that it cannot 
implement such a system.
  Put simply, Mr. President, Section 110 is a mistake, and we must 
correct it. Failure to do so will cost American jobs. It will 
effectively close our borders to honest trade and tourism while harming 
our efforts to fight drugs, terrorism and illegal aliens. It must be 
eliminated.
  We risk a great deal if we fail to act, Mr. President. Last year 
alone, exports to Canada generated more that 72,000 jobs in key 
manufacturing industries and more than $4.68 billion in value added for 
the state of Michigan alone. Our trade with Canada is the most 
extensive and profitable in the world. And last year more than 116 
million people entered the United States by land from Canada.
  The extent of our trade with Canada has caused us to develop an 
intricate web of interdependence that requires a substantially open 
border. With ``just in time'' delivery becoming the norm in our 
automobile assembly lines and throughout our manufacturing sector, a 
delivery of parts delayed by as little as 20 minutes can cause 
expensive assembly line shutdowns which our economy can ill afford.
  But delay is exactly what we will see if Section 110 is not 
eliminated. Dan Stamper, President of the Detroit International Bridge 
Company, has testified that even a very efficient system, say one 
taking 30 seconds for each person to be recorded entering or leaving 
the country, would mean enormous delays. More than 30,000 crossings per 
day take place at Detroit's Ambassador Bridge. Even if we say that 
7,500 Canadians cross each day, that means 2,250 minutes of additional 
processing time. But there are only 1,440 minutes in a day. Traffic 
would be backed up literally for miles. Significant problems would be 
experienced on the Southern border as well.

  Assembly lines will shut down. Tourists will stay home. Americans 
will lose jobs.
  And for what? Nothing the American people want. The two pilot 
programs set up by the INS to test implementation of Section 110, one 
in Texas and one in upstate New York, were both shut down due to fierce 
community opposition.
  Moreover, time and manpower diverted to Section 110's impossible 
directive will take away from efforts to deal with other problems 
facing the INS and the Customs service--problems like drug 
interdiction, the fight against terrorism, and the fight against 
illegal immigration. Drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration are real 
problems requiring a real investment on our part. We can't afford to 
undermine these programs to pursue a policy we know is nothing more 
than a mistake.
  This legislation would eliminate the mandated automated entry-exit 
system at land and sea ports of entries and replace it with a 
feasibility study, required within one year of the passage of the bill, 
to examine whether any system could ever be developed and at an 
acceptable cost to American taxpayers, employers, employees, and the 
nation as a whole.
  The bill would also authorize significant additional resources at the 
Northern and Southern borders to fight drugs and terrorism, and to 
facilitate the entry of legitimate trade and commerce. The legislation 
authorizes for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 a net increase of 535 INS 
inspectors for the Southwest land border and 375 inspectors for the 
Northern land border, in order to open all primary lanes on the 
Southwest and Northern borders during peak hours and enhance 
investigative resources. It would add 100 canine enforcement vehicles 
to be used by INS for inspection and enforcement at U.S. land borders. 
And it would provide for a net increase of 40 intelligence analysts and 
additional resources to be distributed among border patrol sectors that 
have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug or narcotics 
distribution and transportation centers to fight against drug smuggling 
and money-laundering.
  For the U.S. Customs Service, the bill would authorize significant 
additional resources in technology and manpower for peak hours and 
investigations, including new technology and a net increase of 535 
inspectors and 60 special agents for the Southwest border and 375 
inspectors for the Northern border. In addition, the bill provides a 
net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement officers to be 
distributed at large cargo facilities as needed to process and screen 
cargo and reduce commercial waiting times on U.S. land borders. It 
would also authorize a net increase of 360 special agents, 40 
intelligence analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among 
offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug or 
narcotics distribution and transportation centers for intensification 
of efforts against drug smuggling and money-laundering organizations. 
The bill also provides for a net increase of 50 positions and

[[Page S3478]]

additional resources to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance 
investigative resources for anticorruption efforts.
  Mr. President, this bill passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent 
last year, which helped lead to a significant success--a two and a half 
year delay in the mandate for implementing this system. The 30 month 
delay was based on a recognition that this program is unworkable. 
Unfortunately, it provided only a small reprieve that will expire at 
the beginning of the next Congress. We must build on our success 
achieved last year. It is time to act, to protect American jobs, to 
maintain our law enforcement priorities and to uphold common sense.
  I want to thank again the many cosponsors of this legislation and ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 745

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Border Improvement and 
     Immigration Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 
                   IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996.

       (a) In General.--Section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1221 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney 
     General shall develop an automated entry and exit control 
     system that will--
       ``(A) collect a record of departure for every alien 
     departing the United States and match the record of departure 
     with the record of the alien's arrival in the United States; 
     and
       ``(B) enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-
     line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants 
     who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized 
     by the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Exception.--The system under paragraph (1) shall not 
     collect a record of arrival or departure--
       ``(A) at a land border or seaport of the United States for 
     any alien; or
       ``(B) for any alien for whom the documentary requirements 
     in section 212(a)(7)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act have been waived by the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of State under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-
     546).

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON AUTOMATED ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives on the feasibility of developing 
     and implementing an automated entry-exit control system that 
     would collect a record of departure for every alien departing 
     the United States and match the record of departure with the 
     record of the alien's arrival in the United States, including 
     departures and arrivals at the land borders and seaports of 
     the United States.
       (b) Contents of Report.--Such report shall--
       (1) assess the costs and feasibility of various means of 
     operating such an automated entry-exit control system, 
     including exploring--
       (A) how, if the automated entry-exit control system were 
     limited to certain aliens arriving at airports, departure 
     records of those aliens could be collected when they depart 
     through a land border or seaport; and
       (B) the feasibility of the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, negotiating 
     reciprocal agreements with the governments of contiguous 
     countries to collect such information on behalf of the United 
     States and share it in an acceptable automated format;
       (2) consider the various means of developing such a system, 
     including the use of pilot projects if appropriate, and 
     assess which means would be most appropriate in which 
     geographical regions;
       (3) evaluate how such a system could be implemented without 
     increasing border traffic congestion and border crossing 
     delays and, if any such system would increase border crossing 
     delays, evaluate to what extent such congestion or delays 
     would increase; and
       (4) estimate the length of time that would be required for 
     any such system to be developed and implemented.

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORTS ON ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL AND USE OF 
                   ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL DATA.

       (a) Annual Reports on Implementation of Entry-Exit Control 
     at Airports.--Not later than 30 days after the end of each 
     fiscal year until the fiscal year in which Attorney General 
     certifies to Congress that the entry-exit control system 
     required by section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended by 
     section 2 of this Act, has been developed, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that--
       (1) provides an accurate assessment of the status of the 
     development of the entry-exit control system;
       (2) includes a specific schedule for the development of the 
     entry-exit control system that the Attorney General 
     anticipates will be met; and
       (3) includes a detailed estimate of the funding, if any, 
     needed for the development of the entry-exit control system.
       (b) Annual Reports on Visa Overstays Identified Through the 
     Entry-Exit Control System.--Not later than June 30 of each 
     year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report that sets forth--
       (1) the number of arrival records of aliens and the number 
     of departure records of aliens that were collected during the 
     preceding fiscal year under the entry-exit control system 
     under section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as so amended, with a 
     separate accounting of such numbers by country of 
     nationality;
       (2) the number of departure records of aliens that were 
     successfully matched to records of such aliens' prior arrival 
     in the United States, with a separate accounting of such 
     numbers by country of nationality and by classification as 
     immigrant or nonimmigrant; and
       (3) the number of aliens who arrived as nonimmigrants, or 
     as visitors under the visa waiver program under section 217 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act, for whom no matching 
     departure record has been obtained through the system, or 
     through other means, as of the end of such aliens' authorized 
     period of stay, with an accounting by country of nationality 
     and approximate date of arrival in the United States.
       (c) Incorporation into Other Databases.--Information 
     regarding aliens who have remained in the United States 
     beyond their authorized period of stay that is identified 
     through the system referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
     integrated into appropriate databases of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service and the Department of State, including 
     those used at ports-of-entry and at consular offices.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BORDER CONTROL 
                   AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE IMMIGRATION 
                   AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.

       (a) Authorization.--In order to enhance enforcement and 
     inspection resources on the land borders of the United 
     States, enhance investigative resources for anticorruption 
     efforts and efforts against drug smuggling and money-
     laundering organizations, reduce commercial and passenger 
     traffic waiting times, and open all primary lanes during peak 
     hours at major land border ports of entry on the Southwest 
     and Northern land borders of the United States, in addition 
     to any other amounts appropriated, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated for salaries, expenses, and equipment for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service for purposes of 
     carrying out this section--
       (1) $119,604,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $123,064,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (3) such sums as may be necessary in each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Use of Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Funds.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)(1) for 
     fiscal year 2000 for the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service, $19,090,000 shall be available until expended for 
     acquisition and other expenses associated with implementation 
     and full deployment of narcotics enforcement and other 
     technology along the land borders of the United States, 
     including--
       (1) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging to be distributed to border patrol 
     checkpoints and in secondary inspection areas of land border 
     ports-of-entry;
       (2) $200,000 for 10 ultrasonic container inspection units 
     to be distributed to border patrol checkpoints and in 
     secondary inspection areas of land border ports-of-entry;
       (3) $240,000 for 10 Portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications System (TECS) terminals to be distributed to 
     border patrol checkpoints;
       (4) $5,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera 
     systems to be distributed to border patrol checkpoints and at 
     secondary inspection areas of land border ports-of-entry;
       (5) $180,000 for 36 AM radio ``Welcome to the United 
     States'' stations located at permanent border patrol 
     checkpoints and at secondary inspection areas of land border 
     ports-of-entry;
       (6) $875,000 for 36 spotter camera systems located at 
     permanent border patrol checkpoints and at secondary 
     inspection areas of land border ports-of-entry; and
       (7) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
     detectors to be distributed to border patrol checkpoints and 
     at secondary inspection areas of land border ports-of-entry.
       (c) Use of Certain Funds after Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of subsection (a) for the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, $4,773,000 shall be

[[Page S3479]]

     for the maintenance and support of the equipment and training 
     of personnel to maintain and support the equipment described 
     in subsection (b), based on an estimate of 25 percent of the 
     cost of such equipment.
       (d) Use of Funds for New Technologies.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may use the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for equipment under this 
     section for equipment other than the equipment specified in 
     subsection (b) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     specified in subsection (b); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment specified in 
     subsection (b); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     authorized in subsection (b).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Attorney General may reallocate an 
     amount not to exceed 10 percent of the amount specified in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) for any other 
     equipment specified in subsection (b).
       (e) Peak Hours and Investigative Resource Enhancement.--Of 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of subsection (a) for the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, 
     $100,514,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $121,555,000 for fiscal 
     year 2001 shall be for--
       (1) a net increase of 535 inspectors for the Southwest land 
     border and 375 inspectors for the Northern land border, in 
     order to open all primary lanes on the Southwest and Northern 
     borders during peak hours and enhance investigative 
     resources;
       (2) in order to enhance enforcement and reduce waiting 
     times, a net increase of 100 inspectors and canine 
     enforcement officers for border patrol checkpoints and ports-
     of-entry, as well as 100 canines and 5 canine trainers;
       (3) 100 canine enforcement vehicles to be used by the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service for inspection and 
     enforcement at the land borders of the United States;
       (4) a net increase of 40 intelligence analysts and 
     additional resources to be distributed among border patrol 
     sectors that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug 
     or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for 
     intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
     laundering organizations;
       (5) a net increase of 68 positions and additional resources 
     to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Justice to enhance investigative resources for anticorruption 
     efforts; and
       (6) the costs incurred as a result of the increase in 
     personnel hired pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BORDER CONTROL 
                   AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Authorization.--In order to enhance border 
     investigative resources on the land borders of the United 
     States, enhance investigative resources for anticorruption 
     efforts, intensify efforts against drug smuggling and money-
     laundering organizations, process cargo, reduce commercial 
     and passenger traffic waiting times, and open all primary 
     lanes during peak hours at certain ports on the Southwest and 
     Northern borders, in addition to any other amount 
     appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
     salaries, expenses, and equipment for the United States 
     Customs Service for purposes of carrying out this section--
       (1) $161,248,584 for fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $185,751,328 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (3) such sums as may be necessary in each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Use of Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Funds.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)(1) for 
     fiscal year 2000 for the United States Customs Service, 
     $48,404,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition 
     and other expenses associated with implementation and full 
     deployment of narcotics enforcement and cargo processing 
     technology along the land borders of the United States, 
     including--
       (1) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS);
       (2) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging;
       (3) $12,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
     rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts 
     to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV);
       (4) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays;
       (5) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors 
     (busters) to be distributed among ports where the current 
     allocations are inadequate;
       (6) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among border ports based on traffic volume and 
     need as identified by the Customs Service;
       (7) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units 
     to be distributed among ports receiving liquid-filled cargo 
     and ports with a hazardous material inspection facility, 
     based on need as identified by the Customs Service;
       (8) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems;
       (9) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be 
     distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat;
       (10) $480,000 for 20 Portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications System (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed;
       (11) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera 
     systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at 
     loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or 
     areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured, 
     based on need as identified by the Customs Service;
       (12) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be 
     distributed among the ports on the Southwest border with the 
     greatest volume of outbound traffic;
       (13) $180,000 for 36 AM radio ``Welcome to the United 
     States'' stations, with one station to be located at each 
     border crossing point on the Southwest border;
       (14) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be 
     installed at every inbound vehicle lane on the Southwest 
     border;
       (15) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the 
     surveillance of Customs inspection activities by persons 
     outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance 
     activities are occurring;
       (16) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders 
     to be distributed to all ports of entry on the Southwest 
     border;
       (17) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
     detectors to be distributed to each border crossing on the 
     Southwest border; and
       (18) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting 
     software to be installed at each port on the Southwest border 
     to target inbound vehicles.
       (c) Use of Certain Funds After Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of subsection (a) for the United States Customs 
     Service for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     $4,840,400 shall be for the maintenance and support of the 
     equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support 
     the equipment described in subsection (b), based on an 
     estimate of 10 percent of the cost of such equipment.
       (d) Use of Funds for New Technologies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for equipment under 
     this section for equipment other than the equipment specified 
     in subsection (b) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     specified in subsection (b); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment specified in 
     subsection (b); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     authorized in paragraphs (1) through (18) of subsection (b).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the amount specified in 
     paragraphs (1) through (18) of subsection (b) for any other 
     equipment specified in such paragraphs.
       (e) Peak Hours and Investigative Resource Enhancement.--Of 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of subsection (a) for the United States Customs 
     Service for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $112,844,584 in 
     fiscal year 2000 and $180,910,928 for fiscal year 2001 shall 
     be for--
       (1) a net increase of 535 inspectors and 60 special agents 
     for the Southwest border and 375 inspectors for the Northern 
     border, in order to open all primary lanes on the Southwest 
     and Northern borders during peak hours and enhance 
     investigative resources;
       (2) a net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement 
     officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as 
     needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and 
     reduce commercial waiting times on the land borders of the 
     United States;
       (3) a net increase of 360 special agents, 40 intelligence 
     analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among 
     offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug 
     or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for 
     intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
     laundering organizations;
       (4) a net increase of 50 positions and additional resources 
     to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative 
     resources for anticorruption efforts; and
       (5) the costs incurred as a result of the increase in 
     personnel hired pursuant to this section.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor 
of the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999. I co-sponsored 
identical legislation that passed the Senate during the 105th Congress 
but did not become law. It is my hope that the Senate will once again 
move quickly on this legislation so that we may properly address the 
concerns of the many Americans who would be adversely affected by the 
ill-timed implementation of the automated entry-exit border control 
system mandated by immigration legislation passed by the 104th 
Congress.
  Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, codified as Public Law 104-208, required 
that the Attorney General develop within two years an automated entry-
exit control system to allow for a better estimate of the number of 
visa overstayers in the United States. This system would be designed to 
collect records of arrival and departure for all aliens in the United 
States, thereby theoretically enabling the Attorney General to identify 
lawfully admitted non-immigrants

[[Page S3480]]

who remain in this country beyond an authorized period.
  I have long been sympathetic to the concern of border communities and 
businesses that implementation of Section 110 by the statutory deadline 
of September 30, 1998, would severely disrupt trade and travel across 
America's borders. The governors of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, the 
Border Trade Alliance, and numerous businesses operating in the border 
region have contacted me to express their reservations about the 
consequences of implementing such a system. Even Section 110's most 
adamant advocates concede that the Administration has neither budgeted 
for nor begun to put in place the physical and technological 
infrastructure required to activate a system capable of monitoring the 
arrival and departure of every alien entering and departing the United 
States.
  It has been estimated that the amount of information to be recorded 
in the database of such an automated entry-exit system would be larger 
than that held by the Library of Congress, the largest physical 
repository of information in the world. Clearly, it would be disastrous 
to implement Section 110 before we are capable of making it work.
  Given these reservations, I wrote Attorney General Janet Reno on 
January 14, 1998, to highlight the potentially harmful impact of the 
statutory deadline for implementation of Section 110 on Arizona's 
border communities. I also sponsored S. 1360, the Border Improvement 
and Immigration Act of 1998, to require a feasibility study of Section 
110 before it is implemented. Ultimately, the 105th Congress addressed 
this issue in the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
  After learning that conferees to the bill were considering delaying 
implementation of the automated entry-exit system on the southwest 
border for only one year, while indefinitely delaying or even removing 
its applicability to the northern border, I initiated a letter with 
Senator Kyl to the House and Senate conferees urging them to delay 
implementation of the program by 30 months for both borders. 
Ultimately, the conferees agreed to this 30-month delay. I was 
gratified that the final version of the FY 1999 Omnibus bill reflected 
our request not to discriminate against the southwest border by 
imposing a deadline for installation of an entry-exit system that could 
not realistically be met.
  Like other provisions of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, 
however, this compromise on Section 110 was a quick fix, not a lasting 
solution. The language in the bill setting a new deadline for 
implementation of an automated entry-exit system was designed to 
prevent the Immigration and Naturalization Service from being in 
technical violation of the law by failing to carry out the mandate of 
Section 110 by the 1998 deadline. The extension of that deadline by 30 
months provides Congress with the opportunity to more thoughtfully 
assess the long-term feasibility of an automated entry-exit system for 
all ports of entry into the United States.
  The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999 would indefinitely 
extend the deadline for implementation of Section 110 and require a 
detailed feasibility study to determine how and whether the requirement 
can ultimately be met. The legislation would also authorize substantial 
new resources for INS and Customs Service border enforcement 
activities. Specifically, it would authorize the expenditure of $588 
million over the next two years to enhance border enforcement against 
illegal immigration and drug trafficking, as well as investigate 
corruption and money-laundering along the border; add 1,200 new INS 
inspectors, canine enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, and 
investigators to bolster enforcement against illegal aliens and 
narcotics trafficking; and add 1,700 new Customs inspectors, special 
agents, intelligence analysts, and canine enforcement officers to man 
ports of entry and investigate criminal activity along the border.
  The legislation would also provide the high-technology tools, 
including x-ray, ultrasonic, motion-detecting, remote-watch, and 
particle-detector sensors, that will enable INS and Customs officials 
to more effectively interdict narcotics and illegal immigrants. 
Finally, it would enhance investigative resources for border 
enforcement and anti-corruption efforts, intensify efforts against drug 
smuggling and money-laundering organizations, allow for more rapid 
cargo processing, and reduce commercial and passenger traffic waiting 
times at ports of entry.
  As a founding member and Co-Chairman of the Senate Border Caucus, 
whose priorities include improving border enforcement and facilitating 
U.S. trade with Mexico, I believe this bill advances our national 
interest in better controlling our nation's borders without unduly 
hindering flows of cross-border trade and travel. The Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999 deserves this Congress' 
support.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I join Senator Abraham, Chairman of the 
Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Mr. President. Minnesota and 
Michigan are two states which share a common border with Canada, and so 
I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Abraham as co-sponsor of his 
bill to ensure Canada will continue to receive current treatment of its 
traveling citizens by requiring a feasibility study of Section 110 of 
the IIRIRA bill. There has been great concern, especially in Minnesota 
as to how the immigration law we passed in 1996 will affect the 
northern U.S. border. Right now the fear is the law is being 
misinterpreted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Minnesota has about 817 miles of shared border with Canada and we 
share many interests with our northern neighbor--tourism, trade and 
family visits among the most prevalent. In the last few years, passage 
back and forth over the Minnesota/Canadian border has been more open 
and free flowing, especially since the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. There were 116 million travelers 
entering the U.S. from Canada in 1996 over the land border. As our 
relationship with Canada is increasingly interwoven, we have sought a 
less restrictive access to each country.
  The Immigration Bill of 1996 was intended to focus on illegal aliens 
entering this country from Mexico and living in the United States 
illegally. The new law states that ``every alien'' entering and leaving 
the United States would have to register at all the borders--land, sea 
and air. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was tasked with the 
effort to set up automated pilot sites along the border to discover the 
most effective way to implement this law, which was to become effective 
on September 30, 1998.
  The INS was quietly going about establishing a pilot site on the New 
York State border when the reality sunk in. A flood of calls from 
constituents came into the offices of all of us serving Canadian border 
states. Canadian citizens and the Canadian government, also, registered 
opposition to this new restriction. It became quite clear that no one 
had considered how the new law affected Canada. Current law already 
waives the document requirement for most Canadian nationals, but still 
requires certain citizens to register at border crossings. That system 
has worked. There have been very few problems at the northern border 
with drug trafficking and illegal aliens.
  In an effort to resolve this situation, I joined other Senators in a 
letter to INS Commissioner Meissner asking for her interpretation of 
this law. Other bills were introduced addressing this issue in the last 
Congress and action was taken extending the implementation of this 
Section until March 30, 2001.
  However, today, we must make it very clear that Congress did not 
intend to impose additional documentary requirements on Canadian 
nationals; Senator Abraham's bill will restore our intent.
  This legislation will not precipitously open the flood gates for 
illegal aliens to pass through--it will still require those who 
currently need documentation to continue to produce it and remain 
registered in a new INS system. This will allow the INS to keep track 
of that category of non-immigrant entering our country to ensure they 
leave when their visas expire. Senator Abraham's bill will not unfairly 
treat our friends on the Canadian side that have been deemed not to 
need documentation--they will still be able to pass freely back and 
forth across the border.
  But this bill will enable us to avoid the huge traffic jams and 
confusion

[[Page S3481]]

which would no doubt occur if every alien was to be registered in and 
out of the U.S. Such registration would discourage trade and visits to 
our country. It would delay shipments of important industrial 
equipment, auto parts, services and other shared ventures that have 
long thrived along the northern border. It will discourage the economic 
revival that northern Minnesotans are experiencing, helped by Canadian 
shoppers and tourists.
  Mr. President, I do not believe Congress intended to create this new 
mandate. We sought to keep illegal aliens and illegal drugs out, not 
our trading partners and visiting consumers. Through the Abraham bill, 
we will still do that while keeping the door opened to our neighbors 
from the north. The bill is good foreign policy, good public policy and 
good economic policy. We all will benefit while retaining our ability 
to keep track of non-immigrants who enter our borders.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Abraham for his leadership on this 
important matter. Many Minnesotans, through letters, calls and personal 
appeals, have showed their opposition to a potential crisis. This is, 
also, an unacceptable burden on our Canadian neighbors and those who 
depend upon their free access that effects the economics of all border 
states.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Abraham, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roth, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 746. A bill to provide for analysis of major rules, to promote the 
public's right to know the costs and benefits of major rules, and to 
increase the accountability of quality of Government; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.


                     THE REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator 
Thompson, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999. This is the same 
legislation we developed in the last Congress, and it includes the 
changes we agreed to last year with the Administration. This is the 
legislation the President has agreed to sign if we present it to him in 
this form. And I am hopeful we can get it to him this year and get 
these important processes enacted into law. Senator Thompson and I are 
pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich, Robb, 
Abraham, Rockefeller, Roth, Daschle, Stevens, Moynihan, Cochran, 
Breaux, Frist, Enzi, Grams, Grassley, and Lincoln.
  The Regulatory Improvement Act would put into law basic requirements 
for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and 
executive oversight of the rulemaking process.
  Mr. President, I've fought for regulatory reform since 1979, the year 
I came to the Senate. As for an overall regulatory reform bill, I've 
supported such legislation since 1980, when the Senate first passed S. 
1080, the Laxalt Leahy bill only to have it die later that year in the 
House. Those of us who believe in the benefits of regulation to protect 
health and safety have a particular responsibility to make sure that 
regulations are sensible and cost-effective. When they aren't, the 
regulatory process--which is so vital to our health and well being--
comes under constant attack and the regulations which we count on to 
protect us fail to achieve the maximum effectiveness. We miss the 
opportunity to do more with the resources we have. By requiring a 
regulatory process that is open and requires agencies to use good 
science and common sense, we immunize that process from attack and 
improve the quality of our regulations.
  Based on the principles of better cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment, more flexibility for the regulated industries to reach 
legislative goals in a variety of ways, more cooperative efforts 
between government and industry and less ``us versus them'' attitudes, 
Senator Thompson and I, in cooperation with the Administration, have 
developed this bill.
  Let me highlight some important features of this legislation.
  The bill would put into statute requirements for cost-benefit 
analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of 
the rulemaking process. It requires agencies to do a cost-benefit 
analysis when issuing rules that cost $100 million, or are otherwise 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as having other significant impacts. The 
agency must determine whether the benefits of the rule justify its 
costs; whether the rule is more cost-effective, or provides greater net 
benefits, than other regulatory options considered by the agency; and 
whether the rule adopts a flexible regulatory option. If the agency 
determines that the rule does not do so, the agency is required to 
explain the reasons why it selected the rule, including any statutory 
provision that required the agency to select the rule.
  We say right from the beginning, in the section on findings, that 
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment are useful tools to help 
agencies issue reasonable regulations. However, as we explicitly state, 
they do not replace the need for good judgment and the agencies' 
consideration of social values in deciding when and how to regulate.
  The bill requires an agency issuing a major rule to evaluate the 
benefits and costs of a ``reasonable number of reasonable alternatives 
reflecting the range of regulatory options that would achieve the 
objective of the statute as addressed by the rulemaking.'' The bill 
doesn't require an agency to look at all the possible alternatives, 
just a reasonable number; but it does require the agency to pick a 
selection of options that are available to it within the range of the 
rulemaking objective.
  We define benefits very broadly. Nothing in this bill suggests that 
the only benefits assessed by an agency should be quantifiable. On the 
contrary, this bill explicitly recognizes that many important benefits 
may be nonquantifiable, and that agencies have the right and authority 
to fully consider such benefits when doing the cost-benefit analysis 
and when determining whether the benefits justify the costs.

  If the rule involves a risk to health, safety or the environment, the 
bill requires the agency to do a quality risk assessment to analyze the 
benefits of the rule. All required risk assessments and cost-benefit 
analyses for rules costing $500 million would undergo independent peer 
review. During the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, the 
rulemaking agency is required to consider substitution risks--that is, 
risks that could be expected to result from the implementation of the 
regulatory option selected by the agency--and to compare the risk being 
regulated with other risks with which the public may be familiar.
  The risk assessment requirement establishes basic elements for 
performing risk assessments, many of which will provide transparency 
for an agency's development of a rule, and it requires guidelines for 
such assessments to be issued by OIRA in consultation with the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy.
  Peer review is required by this bill for both cost-benefit analyses 
and risk assessments, but only once per rule. Peer review is not 
required at both the proposed and final rule stages.
  The cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit determinations, and risk 
assessment are required to be included in the rulemaking record and to 
be considered by the court, to the extent relevant, only in determining 
whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, if the 
agency fails to perform the cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment or 
peer review, the court may remand or invalidate the rule, giving due 
regard to prejudicial error, and in any event shall order the agency to 
perform the missing assessment or analysis.
  The bill codifies the review procedure now conducted by the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and requires public 
disclosure of OIRA's review process.
  Finally, the bill requires the Director of OMB to contract for a 
study on the comparison of risks to human health, safety and the 
environment and a study to develop a common basis for risk 
communication with respect to carcinogens and noncarcinogens and the 
incorporation of risk assessments into cost-benefit analyses.
  Mr. President, the cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments 
required by the bill are intended to be transparent to the public. 
Agencies should not hide the important information that forms the basis 
of their regulatory actions.

[[Page S3482]]

  Another important provision of this bill is the one that requires the 
agency to make a reasonable determination whether the benefits of the 
rule justify the costs and whether the regulatory option selected by 
the agency is substantially likely to achieve the objective of the 
rulemaking in a more cost effective manner or with greater net benefits 
than the other regulatory options considered by the agency. This is not 
in any way a decisional criteria that the agency must meet. If, as the 
agency is free to do, it chooses a regulatory option where the benefits 
do not justify the costs or that is not more cost effective or does not 
provide greater net benefits than the other options, the agency is 
required to explain why it did what it did and list the factors that 
caused it to do so. Those factors could be a statute, a policy 
judgment, uncertainties in the data and the like. There is no added 
judicial scrutiny of a rule provided for or intended by this section. 
The final rule must still stand or fall based on whether the court 
finds that the rule is arbitrary or capricious in light of the whole 
rulemaking record. That is the current standard of judicial review.
  The bill says that if an agency ``cannot'' make the determinations 
required by the bill, it has to say why it can't. Use of the word 
``cannot'' does not mean that an agency rule can be overturned by a 
court for its failure to pick an option that would permit the agency to 
make the determinations required by the bill. The agency is free to use 
its discretion to regulate under the substantive statute, and there is 
no implication that such rule must meet the standards described in the 
determinations subsection. This legislation requires only that the 
agency be up front with the public as to just how cost-beneficial and 
cost-effective its regulatory proposal is.

  Judicial review has been of great concern to those of us who want 
real regulatory reform without bottling up important regulations in the 
courts. There is no judicial review permitted of the cost-benefit 
analysis or risk assessment required by this bill outside of judicial 
review of the final rule. The analysis and assessment are included in 
the rulemaking record, but there is no judicial review of the content 
of those items or the procedural steps followed or not followed by the 
agency in the development the analysis or assessment. Only the total 
failure to actually do the cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment 
would allow the court to remand the rule to the agency.
  Finally, as I noted, the bill reflects agreement with the 
Administration. Among the key aspects of that agreement are added 
clarification on the avoidance of a so-called ``supermandate;'' 
clarification of the provisions for peer review; and deletion of 
provisions that would have required periodic reviews of existing rules.
  So those are some highlights. A hearing on the bill in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee is planned for April.
  We are pleased that we have the support of the state and local 
government organizations, namely the National Governor's Association, 
the National League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, as well as dozens of 
business organizations, the school boards, state environmental 
directors, and leading experts and scholars across the country.
  I feel strongly that this bill will improve the regulatory process, 
will build confidence in the regulatory programs that are so important 
to this society's well-being, and will result in better, more 
protective regulations because we will be directing our resources in 
more cost-effective ways.
  I thank Senator Thompson and his staff, Paul Noe, for their 
persistent and hard work in keeping this effort going. I ask unanimous 
consent that the July 15, 1998, letter to me from Jacob Lew, Director 
of OMB, be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1998.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter of July 1, 
     1998, in which you respond to the views on S. 981 that we 
     expressed in former OMB Director Frank Raines' letter of 
     March 6, 1998.
       President Clinton has been a strong supporter of 
     responsible regulatory reform. In addition to signing into a 
     law a number of important pieces of reform legislation, he 
     and Vice President Gore are taking a wide range of 
     administrative steps to improve the regulatory process. For 
     example, under the guidance of Executive Order 12866, 
     agencies are developing flexible performance standards and 
     using market incentives whenever possible; are applying 
     benefit-cost analysis to achieve objectives in the most cost-
     effective manner; and are reaching out to the affected 
     parties, particularly our State and local partners, to 
     understand better the intended and unintended consequences of 
     a proposed regulatory action. Under the leadership of the 
     Vice President's National Partnership for Reinventing 
     Government, agencies are improving delivery of services, 
     reducing red tape, and reforming practices to focus on 
     customer service. The Administration's goal in these actions 
     is to streamline and reduce the burden of government on its 
     citizens, improve services, and restore the basic trust of 
     public in its government.
       The debate on comprehensive regulatory reform legislation 
     is one that has sparked great passion and has provoked, as 
     you aptly note in your letter, ``distrust and friction among 
     the interested parties.'' We heartily agree with you that, to 
     say the least, ``[t]he path to this point has not been 
     easy.'' In part, this has been the result of earlier versions 
     of this legislation proposed by others that sought not to 
     improve the nation's regulatory system, but to burden and 
     undermine it. In a variety of ways these bills would have 
     created obstacles and hurdles to the government's ability to 
     function effectively and to protect the health, safety, and 
     environment of its citizens. In particular, these bills would 
     have created a supermandate, undoing the many protections for 
     our citizens that are carefully crafted into specific 
     statutes. In addition, strict judicial review and complex 
     analytic, risk assessment, peer review, and lookback 
     provisions would have hampered rather than helped the 
     government's ability to make reasonable decisions and would 
     have opened the door to new rounds of endless litigation.
       We appreciate your thoughtful efforts over the past year to 
     respond to issues that we and others have raised. In your 
     latest letter you continue to take seriously our concerns. 
     Indeed, the changes you indicate that you are willing to make 
     would resolve our concerns, and if the bill emerges from the 
     Senate and House as you now propose, with no changes, the 
     President would find it acceptable and sign it.
       I should note, however, that our experience with past 
     efforts to resolve these differences suggests that good ideas 
     and the resolution of differences can be destroyed during the 
     long process at getting a bill to the President's desk, and 
     the nuances and balance that we have all sought in this 
     legislation could be easily disrupted. Many of the terms used 
     carry great meaning, and further modification is likely to 
     renew the concerns that have animated our past opposition to 
     bills of this type. Accordingly, we look forward to working 
     with you to ensure that any bill the Congress passes on this 
     subject is fully consistent with the one on which we have 
     reached agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jacob J. Lew,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr President, I am pleased to join Senator Levin and a 
bipartisan group of our colleagues in introducing legislation to 
promote smarter regulation by the federal government. The Regulatory 
Improvement Act is an effort by many of us who want to improve the 
quality of government to find a common solution. I am pleased that we 
are introducing this bill with Senators Voinovich, Robb Abraham, 
Rockefeller, Roth, Daschle, Stevens, Moynihan, Cochran, Breaux, Frist, 
Lincoln, Enzi, Grams, and Grassley. The supporters of this bill 
represent a real diversity of political viewpoints, but we share the 
same goals. We want an effective government that protects public 
health, well-being and the environment. We want our government to 
achieve those goals in the most sensible and efficient way possible. We 
want to do the best we can with what we've got, and to do more good at 
less cost if possible. The Regulatory Improvement Act will help us do 
that.
  The Regulatory Improvement Act is based on a simple premise: people 
have a right to know how and why government agencies make their most 
important and expensive regulatory decisions. This legislation also 
will improve the quality of government decision making--which will lead 
to a more effective Federal government. And it will make government 
more accountable to the people it serves.
  The Regulatory Improvement Act will require the Federal government to 
make better use of modern decisionmaking tools (such as risk assessment

[[Page S3483]]

and benefit-cost analysis), which are currently under-used. Right now, 
these tools are simply options--options that aren't used as much or as 
well as they should be. Under this legislation, agencies will carefully 
consider and disclose the benefits and costs of different regulatory 
alternatives and seek out the smartest, most flexible solutions. This 
legislation also will help the Federal government set smarter 
priorities--to better focus money and other resources on the most 
serious problems.
  This legislation not only gives people the right to know; it gives 
them the right to see--to see how the government works, or how it 
doesn't. And by providing people with information the government uses 
to make decisions, it gives people a real opportunity to influence 
those decisions. The bill empowers people and their State and local 
officials to provide input into the Federal rulemaking system. It will 
make the Federal government more mindful of how unfunded mandates can 
burden communities and interfere with local priorities. That is why our 
governors, mayors, state legislators, and county officials support the 
Regulatory Improvement Act.
  We have worked hard to build a solid foundation for smarter 
regulatory decisionmaking. Last March, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee favorably reported the Regulatory Improvement Act, then S. 
981, by a 10-5 vote. At the time of the markup, the Administration sent 
a letter to me and Senator Levin expressing a number of concerns with 
the bill. We worked to resolve those concerns, which largely involved 
adding clarifying language to the bill. In addition, some sections of 
the bill were modified, and a couple were dropped. On July 15, Jack 
Lew, the Director of OMB, sent us a letter on behalf of the 
Administration. The letter states that the President supports the 
legislation. I am pleased that the White House recognizes the 
importance of the legislation to deliver the effective and efficient 
regulatory system that the American people expect and deserve.
  This legislation will add transparency to the current rulemaking 
process, raise the quality of regulatory analyses so smarter decisions 
can be made, and help expedite important safeguards--to reduce risks 
and save lives. It will help us get more of the good things sensible 
regulation can deliver. That's why the Regulatory Improvement Act has 
broad bipartisan support and is endorsed by state and local officials, 
government reformers and scholars, small business owners, farmers, 
corporate leaders, and school board members. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to pass this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from 
the National Governors' Association, the National League of Cities, the 
Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National 
Association of Counties be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                                   March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Fred D. Thompson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Thompson and Levin: The nation's Governors 
     support the ``Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999.'' The 
     proposed legislation would greatly assist the state and local 
     governments in assessing the costs and benefits of major 
     regulations. This bill would lead to improved quality of 
     federal regulatory programs and rules, increase federal 
     government accountability, and encourage open communication 
     among federal agencies, state and local governments, the 
     public, and Congress regarding federal regulatory priorities.
       We applaud your efforts to encourage greater accountability 
     with regard to the burden of costly federal regulations on 
     state and local governments. The changes proposed would, we 
     believe, benefit all of our taxpayers and constituents. We 
     look forward to working with you in securing enactment of 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Thomas R. Carper.
     Governor Michael O. Leavitt
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                                                   March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thompson: The National League of Cities (NLC) 
     applauds your efforts in introducing the Regulatory 
     Improvement Act. NLC represents 135,000 mayors and council 
     members from municipalities across the country. Over 75 
     percent of our members are from small cities and towns with 
     populations of less than 50,000. Costly regulations without 
     and science or significant benefits to health and safety are 
     detrimental and burdensome to cities and towns.
       Local governments could reap substantial benefits from the 
     improvements in the regulatory process that are included in 
     this legislation. These improvements would help municipal 
     officials avert preemptive and costly regulations that are 
     placed on local governments and gain a more powerful voice in 
     the regulatory rulemaking process. The National League of 
     Cities strongly supports enforceable cost-benefit analysis 
     and relative risk assessment for actions by federal agencies 
     that significantly impact state and local governments.
       The Regulatory Improvement Act would also clarify the 
     intent of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by 
     requiring agencies to develop an effective process for local 
     input into the development of regulatory proposals and 
     prevent regulatory proposals that contain significant 
     unfunded federal mandates. This type of partnership could 
     save cities millions of dollars in burdensome regulation and 
     assist the federal government in gaining community buy-in 
     when regulation is necessary.
       The Regulatory Improvement Act will provide a means for 
     testing costs of future regulation on local governments with 
     oversight by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs. While the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act makes 
     great strides towards helping local governments prevent 
     costly regulations, now is the time to clarify the law to 
     provide for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. If 
     your staff has any questions, please have them contact 
     Kristin Cormier, NLC Legislative Counsel.
           Sincerely,
                                              Clarence E. Anthony,
     President, Mayor, South Bay, FL.
                                  ____

                                 The Council of State Governments,


                                            Washington Office,

                                                   March 25, 1999.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: The Council of State Governments (CSG) 
     supports your introduction of the Regulatory Improvement Act. 
     This bill would codify requirements that would compel the 
     federal government to consider the impact and costs of new 
     and current regulations on state and territorial governments, 
     as well as gain the input of local, state, and tribal 
     governments in the regulatory process. CSG represents a 
     national constituency composed of state and territorial 
     elected officials from all three branches of government. 
     Costly regulations without sound science or significant 
     benefits to health and safety are detrimental and burdensome 
     to the jurisdictions administered by our members.
       State governments could reap substantial benefits through 
     improvements in the regulatory process included in this 
     legislation. These improvements would help state officials 
     avert preemptive and costly regulations that are placed on 
     state governments and gain a more powerful voice in the 
     federal regulatory rulemaking process. The Council of State 
     Governments strongly supports enforceable cost-benefit 
     analysis and relative risk assessments for every action by 
     any and every federal agency that significantly impacts state 
     and local governments.
       The Regulatory Improvement Act could clarify the intent of 
     the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). By expanding on 
     UMRA language to require federal agencies to develop an 
     effective process to permit meaningful and timely input from 
     elected state, local and tribal government into the 
     development of federal regulatory proposals containing 
     significant intergovernmental mandates, state governments 
     will be enabled to make the case that certain costs currently 
     being arbitrarily imposed upon them are truly unnecessary and 
     overly burdensome. This type of partnership between the 
     federal and state governments will benefit both parties by 
     saving the states millions of dollars, while simultaneously 
     ensuring community ``buy-in'' when federal regulations are 
     necessary.
       The Regulatory Improvement Act will provide a means for 
     testing costs of future regulation on state governments with 
     oversight by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs. While the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act makes 
     great strides towards helping local governments prevent 
     costly regulations, now is the time to clarify the law to 
     account for cost benefit analysis and risk assessment.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Tommy G. Thompson,
       State of Wisconsin, President, CSG.
     Senator Kenneth D. McClintock,
       Chairman, CSG.

[[Page S3484]]

     
                                  ____
                                               National Conference


                                        of State Legislatures,

                                                   March 25, 1999.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     Chairman.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thompson and Senator Levin: I am writing to 
     offer the strong support of the National Conference of State 
     Legislatures for legislation you will soon introduce that 
     will require cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments for 
     federal regulations that impact state and local governments. 
     This legislation builds on executive order 12866 by codifying 
     many of its provisions. The analyses and assessments included 
     in your legislation are essential for ensuring that 
     government resources are utilized to produce maximum benefits 
     for consumers and those who are regulated.
       We are pleased that your legislation will institute an 
     early consultation process with state and local government 
     officials and their representatives on proposed regulations 
     that may have significant intergovernmental mandates. We are 
     also reassured that you will include independent agencies in 
     the regulatory consultation and cost-benefits analysis/risk 
     assessment processes. This will widen the potential benefit 
     of your legislation and give state and local governments a 
     consultation opportunity that we have not had under other 
     laws and regulatory processes.
       Enactment of both the Regulatory Improvement Act as well as 
     Regulatory Right to Know Act will bolster federalism. Both 
     are a part of a larger federalism agenda that the National 
     Conference of State Legislatures and our state and local 
     government assessment partners are supporting this year.
       I appreciate the leadership you are providing by 
     introducing the Regulatory Improvement Act and look forward 
     to working with you to ensure its enactment during the 106th 
     Congress. NCSL will certainly work to build cosponsorship and 
     support for this legislation so that it can be enacted 
     expeditiously.
           Sincerely,
     William T. Pound, Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                The U.S. Conference of Mayors,

                                                   March 25, 1999.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thompson: On behalf of The U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors, I am writing to express our strong support for the 
     Regulatory Improvement Act (RIA). If enacted, we believe this 
     legislation will greatly improve the way federal agencies 
     develop rules and regulations affecting state and local 
     governments. We are once again delighted that you and Senator 
     Carl Levin will cosponsor this legislation, which enjoys 
     broad bipartisan support.
       Since the passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA) of 1995, members of Congress have become more 
     sensitive to the cost and the impact of new unfunded mandates 
     on state and local governments. Unfortunately, UMRA has had 
     very little effect on the federal regulatory process. We 
     believe this will change once the Levin-Thompson bill is 
     approved. Each federal agency will be required to conduct a 
     risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis on all major rules. 
     If they do not, federal courts will have authority to remand 
     or invalidate such rules.
       In closing, I want to thank you and Senator Levin for 
     cosponsoring this important legislation. By requiring federal 
     agencies to be more sensitive to the cost and benefit of new 
     rules, we believe the number of costly mandates imposed on 
     state and local governments will be reduced in the future. Be 
     assured that the nation's mayors stand ready to work with you 
     in any way we can to ensure the passage of this legislation. 
     Feel free to contact Larry Jones of the Conference staff if 
     you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Deedee Corradini,
     Mayor of Salt Lake City.
                                  ____


               Supporting the Regulatory Improvement Act

       Whereas, in February 1998, the General Accounting Office 
     released a report that concludes that the Unfunded Mandates 
     Reform Act of 1995, which in part was enacted to limit the 
     ability of federal agencies to impose new costly unfunded 
     mandates on state and local governments, has had only limited 
     impact on federal agencies' rulemaking actions; and
       Whereas, state and local leaders are concerned that federal 
     agencies are continuing to impose new costly rules on state 
     and local governments with very little accountability; and
       Whereas, in response to the GAO report, Senators Fred 
     Thompson and Carl Levin introduced the Regulatory Improvement 
     Act, a proposal that would require federal agencies to 
     conduct cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment and peer 
     review before issuing any new major rule (costing over $100 
     million annually or deemed by the Office of Management and 
     Budget to have a significant impact on the economy); and
       Whereas, under the proposed legislation federal agencies 
     that issue new rules before conducting the required cost-
     benefit analysis, risk assessment and peer review would be 
     subjected to judicial review and courts would be required to 
     invalidate such rules; and
       Whereas, the bill would require each federal agency to 
     develop an effective process to allow elected representatives 
     of state and local governments to provide meaningful and 
     timely input into the regulatory process consistent with 
     UMRA; now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges all 
     members of the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Regulatory 
     Improvement Act; and be it
       Further Resolved that The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges 
     that similar legislation be introduced in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives and urges all members to vote in favor of 
     such legislation.
                                  ____



                                                         NACo,

                                                   March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     Chair, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Thompson: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Counties (NACo) I am pleased to express our 
     support for your legislation, The Regulatory Improvement Act. 
     NACo applauds your efforts on behalf of the counties 
     throughout the nation that have for decades faced an ever-
     increasing number of unfunded regulatory mandates from 
     federal departments and agencies.
       NACo supports legislation that would require federal 
     departments and agencies to conduct a cost benefit analysis 
     to determine that the benefits to be derived from issuing a 
     new regulation outweight the costs to state and local 
     government.
           Sincerely,

                                               Betty Lou Ward,

                                                  President, NACo,
                                    Commissioner, Wake County, NC.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my 
colleagues as an original co-sponsor of the Regulatory Improvement Act. 
I commend Senators Thompson and Levin for their bipartisan work to pass 
legislation to enable federal regulators to do a better job of 
protecting public health, safety and the environment. This is the same 
bill that the Administration, state and local governments and the 
business community supported last year.
  I am a public servant who cares deeply about the needs of our 
environment and the health and well-being of our citizens. I sponsored 
legislation to create the Ohio Environmental Agency when I served in 
the state legislature, and I fought to end oil and gas drilling in the 
Lake Erie Bed. As Governor, I increased funding for environmental 
protection by over 60 percent.
  However, over the years, I also have become increasingly concerned 
about the unnecessary and burdensome costs that are imposed on our 
citizens and state and local governments through federal laws and 
regulations.
  Efforts to address these cost burdens began back in 1994 when I 
worked with Senators Roth, Glenn and Kempthorne and the state-local 
government coalition to draft an unfunded mandates reform bill. We 
succeeded in passing the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) in the 
104th Congress.
  Following this success, I worked closely with the state-local 
government coalition on our next priority--passage of effective safe 
drinking water reforms--which was enacted with broad bipartisan support 
in 1996.
  These efforts are notable because they represent common-sense reforms 
that make government more accountable based on public awareness of 
risks, costs and benefits. These statutes set key precedents for the 
reforms that are envisioned in the regulatory Improvement Act. In many 
respects, this bill builds on these achievements. Senator Thompson has 
said that this bill represents phase 2 of UMRA and I strongly agree.
  I specifically mention the drinking water program today because of 
its close similarity to the Regulatory Improvement Act. In both, 
agencies are required to conduct an analysis of incremental costs and 
benefits of alternative standards, while providing those agencies with 
flexibility in making final regulatory decisions.
  If we agree that these analytical tools are good enough for the water 
that we drink, they certainly must be good enough for other 
regulations.
  However, both UMRA and the drinking water amendments have had limited 
applications. The Regulatory Improvement Act is needed to provide 
across-the-board cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment procedures 
at all federal agencies. This bill will result in greater protection of 
public health and the environment while alleviating cost burdens on 
state and local governments and the private sector.
  GAO reported last year that UMRA has had little effect on the way 
federal agencies make rulemaking decisions. The report specifically 
points out that the Regulatory Improvement Act

[[Page S3485]]

would improve the quality of regulatory analysis. I think it is time 
that we make federal agencies--not just Congress--accountable for the 
decisions they make.
  While many federal regulations have been well intended, not all have 
achieved their purpose and many have unnecessarily passed significant 
burdens onto our citizens and state and local governments.
  It is crucial that federal, state and local governments work in 
partnership to determine how we can best allocate resources for 
protection of health and the environment. As a nation, we spend vast 
sums on regulations. A report commissioned by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration estimates that regulations will cost the economy about 
$709 billion 1999--more than $7,000 for the average American household.
  Unfortunately, this burden on consumers and American businesses has 
not always resulted in maximum health or environmental protection. At 
times, it has diverted scarce resources that could be used for other 
priorities such as education, crime prevention and more effective 
protection of health and the environment.
  The challenge facing public officials today is determining how best 
to protect the health of our citizens and our environment with limited 
resources. We need to do a much better job ensuring that regulations' 
costs bear a reasonable relationship with their benefits, and we need 
to do a better job of setting priorities and spending our resources 
wisely.
  I believe that the Regulatory Improvement Act will help achieve these 
goals. First, I believe this bill will increase the public's knowledge 
of how and why agencies make major rules. In essence, this bill asks 
regulatory agencies to answer several simple, but vital questions: What 
is the nature of the risk being considered? What are the benefits of 
the proposed regulation? How much will it cost? And, are there better, 
less burdensome ways to achieve the same goals?
  I am particularly pleased that the bill provides opportunities for 
state and local government officials to consult with agencies as rules 
are being developed so that regulators are more sensitive to state and 
local needs and the burden of unfunded mandates. This only makes sense 
since states and local governments often have the responsibility of 
implementing and enforcing these regulations.
  Second, requiring federal agencies to conduct cost-benefit analyses, 
publish those results, disclose any estimates of risks and explain 
whether any of these factors were considered in finalizing rules will 
increase government accountability to the people it serves.
  And finally, this bill will improve the quality of government 
decision-making by allowing the government to set priorities and focus 
on the worst risks first. Careful thought, reasonable assumptions, peer 
review and sound science will help target problems and find better 
solutions.
  This bill does not mandate outcomes, but it does impose common-sense 
discipline and accountability in the rulemaking process. I think it is 
time to move forward with this bipartisan measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 747. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to promote rail 
competition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


     Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization and Rail Service 
                            Improvement Act

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Surface 
Transportation Board Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999.
  My highest priority as chairman of the Surface Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee this year is to pass a re-
authorization bill--one that provides some ability for shippers to 
obtain improved service and rates, while maintaining the ability of 
railroads to make a return and, indeed, grow.
  The bill I am introducing seeks to improve competition and the 
procedures at the Board that shippers and carriers rely upon to 
adjudicate their rate disputes. At the same time, it recognizes the 
need for the railroad industry to maintain sound financial footing, 
capable of maintaining the railroad infrastructure.
  Last year, at the behest of Chairman McCain and me, the Board 
initiated a hearing process on competition issues and developed an 
extensive record on these issues. Specifically, the Board held two days 
of hearings and received testimony from 60 witnesses. It heard shipper 
complaints of inadequate service, higher rates, and concentration in 
the railroad industry. The Board also listened to carriers who stressed 
that, especially in a growing economy, capacity and infrastructure 
investment is the key to meeting their customers' needs.
  In addition, the Board held a hearing in December at my request on 
the proposals offered by Houston shippers, the Greater Houston 
Partnership and the Railroad Commission of Texas.
  As a result of these hearings, the Board has done what is within its 
authority to help shippers obtain some relief. It undertook two 
important rulemakings. One provides for alternative rail availability 
during a service failure. The other streamlines rail rate cases by 
dispensing with consideration of ``product and geographic competition'' 
in determining market dominance for rate cases.
  I commend the Board for making these rules, and --frankly--for going 
no further. It's refreshing to find a regulatory body that does not 
attempt to develop a new policy in the absence of Congressional 
guidance.
  This bill picks up where the Board's actions left off. First, it 
codifies the Board's decision to streamline the market dominance test 
and the procedure for providing alternative rail availability during a 
service failure. Second, it begins the process of reforming the 
procedure that small shippers use for rate cases. A recent GAO report 
highlights the cost, in time and money, of the current process.
  This bill also sets into motion changes in the Board's revenue 
adequacy finding, making it a more helpful and real-world standard. It 
balances the bottleneck issue, enhances the Board's emergency powers 
and establishes an arbitration system that could lead to better-shipper 
carrier dialogue. Finally, it clarifies, in a balanced way and without 
dictating specific outcomes, that competition remains part of the rail 
merger and national rail policy of this country.
  It is clear that Congress has a job to do in re-authorizing the 
Surface Transportation Board and addressing some of the difficult 
issues associated with it. This bill is a first step. I want to 
strongly convey that I do not see it as a final product. While I view 
it as fair to all parties, I am ready to consider changes to improve 
the bill and ensure its enactment. To that end, I encourage my 
colleagues to work with me toward the common purpose of reauthorizing 
the Board and making some common sense improvements.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 747

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Surface Transportation Board 
     Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROMOTION OF COMPETITION WITHIN THE RAIL INDUSTRY.

       Section 10101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as paragraphs 
     (2) through (8);
       (2) inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(1) to encourage and promote effective competition within 
     the rail industry;'';
       (3) striking ``revenues,'' in paragraph (4), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``revenues to ensure appropriate 
     rail infrastructure;'';
       (4) redesignating paragraphs (8) through (15) as paragraphs 
     (10) through (17); and
       (5) inserting before paragraph (10), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(9) to discourage artificial barriers to interchange and 
     car supply which can impede competition between shortline, 
     regional, and Class I carriers and block effective rail 
     service to shippers;''.

     SEC. 3 EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT ON EMERGENCY SERVICE ORDERS.

       Section 11123 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) striking ``30'' in subsection (a) and inserting ``60'';
       (2) striking ``30'' in subsection (c)(1) and inserting 
     ``60''; and
       (3) adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
       ``(4) The Board may provide up to 2 extensions, totalling 
     not more than 180 days, of the 240-day period under paragraph 
     (1).''.

[[Page S3486]]

     SEC. 4. PROCEDURAL RELIEF FOR SMALL RATE CASES.

       (a) Discovery Limited.--Section 10701(d) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(A)'' in paragraph (3) before ``The 
     Board''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       (``(B) Unless the Board finds that there is a compelling 
     need to permit discovery in a particular proceeding, 
     discovery shall not be permitted in a proceeding handled 
     under the guidelines established under subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Administrative Relief.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Surface Transportation 
     Board shall--
       (1) review the rules and procedures applicable to rate 
     complaints and other complaints filed with the Board by small 
     shippers;
       (2) identify any such rules or procedures that are unduly 
     burdensome to small shippers; and
       (3) take such action, including rulemaking, as is 
     appropriate to reduce or eliminate the aspects of the rules 
     and procedures that the Board determines under paragraph (2) 
     to be unduly burdensome to small shippers.
       (c) Legislative Relief.--The Board shall notify the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives if the Board determines that 
     additional changes in the rules and procedures described in 
     subsection (b) are appropriate and require commensurate 
     changes in statutory law. In making that notification, the 
     Board shall make recommendations concerning those changes.

     SEC. 5. CODIFICATION OF MARKET DOMINANCE RELIEF.

       Setion 10707(d)(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``In 
     making a determination under this section, the Board may not 
     consider evidence of product or geographic competition.''.

     SEC. 6. RAIL REVENUE ADEQUACY DETERMINATIONS.

       (a) Section 10101(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``revenues, as determined by the Board;'' 
     and inserting ``revenues;''.
       (b) Section 10701(d)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``revenues, as established by the Board 
     under section 10704(a)(2) of this title.'' and inserting 
     ``revenues.''.
       (c) Section 10701(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(4) To facilitate the process by which the Board gives 
     due consideration to the policy that rail carriers shall earn 
     adequate revenues, the Board shall convene a 3-member panel 
     of outside experts to make recommendations as to an 
     appropriate methodology by which the adequacy of a carrier's 
     revenues should be considered. The panel shall issue a report 
     containing its recommendations within 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Surface Transportation Board Amendments 
     of 1999.''.

     SEC. 7. BOTTLENECK RATES.

       (a) Through Routes.--Section 10703 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Rail 
     carriers''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Connecting Carriers.--When a shipper and rail carrier 
     enter into a contract under section 10709 for transportation 
     that would require a through route with a connecting carrier 
     and there is no reasonable alternative route that could be 
     constructed without participation of that connecting carrier, 
     the connecting carrier shall, upon request, establish a 
     through route and a rate that can be used in conjunction with 
     transportation provided pursuant to the contract, unless the 
     connecting carrier shows that--
       ``(1) the interchange requested is not operationally 
     feasible; or
       ``(2) the through route would significantly impair the 
     connecting carrier's ability to serve its other traffic. The 
     connecting carrier shall establish a rate and through route 
     within 21 days unless the Board has made a determination that 
     the connecting carrier is likely to prevail in its claim 
     under paragraph (1) or (2).''.
       (b) Board's Authority to Prescribe Division of Joint 
     Rates.--Section 10705(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``The Board shall'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in section 10703(b), the Board shall''.
       (c) Complaints.--Section 11701 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Where transportation over a portion of a through 
     route is governed by a contract under section 10709, a rate 
     complaint must be limited to the rates that apply to the 
     portion of the through route not governed by such a 
     contract.''.

     SEC. 8. SIMPLIFIED DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Surface Transportation Board shall promulgate regulations 
     adopting a simplified dispute resolution mechanism with the 
     following features:
       (1) In general.--The simplified dispute resolution 
     mechanism will utilize expedited arbitration with a minimum 
     of discovery and may be used to decide disputes between 
     parties involving any matter subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the Board, other than rate reasonableness cases that would be 
     decided under constrained market pricing principles.
       (2) Applicable standards.--Arbitrators will apply existing 
     legal standards.
       (3) Mandatory if requested.--Use of the simplified dispute 
     resolution mechanism is required whenever at least one party 
     to the dispute requests.
       (4) 90-day turnaround.--Arbitrators will issue their 
     decisions within 90 days after being appointed.
       (5) Payment of costs.--Each party will pay its own costs, 
     and the costs of the arbitrator and other administrative 
     costs of arbitration will be shared equally between and among 
     the parties.
       (6) Decisions private; not precedential.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by the Board, decisions will remain 
     private and will not constitute binding precedent.
       (7) Decisions binding and enforceable.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in paragraph (8), decisions will be binding and 
     enforceable by the Board.
       (8) Right to appeal.--Any party will have an unqualified 
     right to appeal any decision to the Board, in which case the 
     Board will decide the matter de novo. In making its decision, 
     the Board may consider the decision of the arbitrator and any 
     evidence and other material developed during the arbitration.
       (9) Mutual modification.--Any procedure or regulation 
     adopted by the Board with respect to the simplified dispute 
     resolution may be modified or eliminated by mutual agreement 
     of all parties to the dispute.

     SEC. 9. PROMOTION OF COMPETITIVE RAIL SERVICE OPTIONS.

       Section 11324 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' in paragraph (4) of subsection (b);
       (2) by striking ``system.'' in paragraph (5) of subsection 
     (b) and inserting ``system; and'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(6) means and methods to encourage and expand competition 
     between and among rail carriers in the affected region or the 
     national rail system.''; and
       (4) by inserting after the second sentence in subsection 
     (c) the following: ``The Board may impose conditions to 
     encourage and expand competition between and among rail 
     carriers in the affected region or the national rail system, 
     if such conditions do not cause substantial harm to the 
     benefits of the transaction to the affected carriers or the 
     public.''.

     SEC. 10. CLARIFICATION OF STB AUTHORITY TO GRANT TEMPORARY 
                   ACCESS RELIEF.

       (a) Section 10705 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(d) The Board may grant temporary relief under this 
     section when the Board finds it necessary and appropriate to 
     do so to remedy inadequate service. The authority provided in 
     this section is in addition to the authority of the Board to 
     provide temporary relief under sections 11102 and 11123 of 
     this title.''.
       (b) Section 11102 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(e) The Board may grant temporary relief under 
     subsections (a) and (c) when the Board finds it necessary and 
     appropriate to do so to remedy inadequate service. The 
     authority provided in this section is in addition to the 
     authority of the Board to provide temporary relief under 
     sections 10705 and 11123 of this title.''.
       (c) Section 11123 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(e) The authority provided in this section is in addition 
     to the authority of the Board to provide temporary relief 
     under sections 10705 and 11102 of this title.''.

     SEC. 11. HOUSEHOLD GOODS COLLECTIVE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 13703(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``(other than an agreement affecting 
     only the transportation of household goods, as defined on 
     December 31, 1995)'' after ``agreement'' in the first 
     sentence.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION LEVELS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Surface 
     Transportation Board $16,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, 
     $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $17,555,000 for fiscal year 
     2001, and $18,129,000 for fiscal year 2002.

     SEC. 13. CHAIRMAN DESIGNATED WITH SENATE CONFIRMATION.

       Section 701(c)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``President'' and inserting ``President, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 748. A bill to improve Native hiring and contracting by the 
Federal Government within the State of Alaska, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                native hire and contracting legislation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this legislation requires the Secretary 
of the Interior to issue a report to the Congress that details the 
specific steps the Department of the Interior will take to contract 
activities and programs of the Department to Alaska Natives.

[[Page S3487]]

  Legislation already exists for contracting with and hiring Alaska 
Natives. Sections 1307 and 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act and section 638 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act are clear on these matters. The problem is 
that the law have been largely ignored.
  Outside of a few studies that were contracted to Native Associations 
during the past two years, the record of the Department in contracting 
and local hiring is abysmal.
  I have been told by representatives of this Administration that there 
are obstacles in both contracting with and hiring local Natives. When 
pressed, the obstacles are not well explained, if at all.
  Mr. President, if there are valid obstacles, we should know 
specifically what they are so that Congress can address them. If there 
are not obstacles, then the Administration should begin to implement 
the law. My legislation requires a complete explanation of the 
``Obstacles'' and a plan for implementing the law in accordance with 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conversation Act and the Indian 
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
  In addition to the report required by this legislation, the Secretary 
is also directed to initiate a pilot program to contract various 
National Park Service functions, operations and programs in northwest 
Alaska to local Native entities.
  Mr. President, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the other agencies 
within the Department have an opportunity to hire and contract with 
local Alaska Natives who were born, raised and live near and in our 
parks, refuges and public lands in Alaska. These individuals are more 
familiar with the area than persons hired from outside Alaska. They 
know the history, they know the hazards, they know about living and 
working in arctic conditions. Given the levels of unemployment in the 
area, it makes absolutely no sense not to hire these individuals.
  I do not understand why any of one of these agencies or bureaus keep 
filing positions with persons from the lower 48--individuals who have 
little experience in Alaska--when they have a qualified individuals in 
the immediate area.
  If we can just get the Federal agencies in the State of Alaska to 
read sections 1307 and 1308 of ANILCA and section 638 of ISEAA it would 
be a major step in the right direction. If Alaska Natives are given the 
opportunity to contract with and be employed by the Federal agencies in 
my State, everyone wins, no one loses, and the American public will be 
better served.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, 
        and Mr. Kerry:)
  S. 749. A bill to establish a program to provide financial assistance 
to States and local entities to support early learning programs for 
prekindergarten children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Stevens, Dodd, Jeffords, 
Kerry and I are introducing legislation to create an Early Learning 
Trust Fund. With this legislation, we intend to improve the 
availability and quality of early learning programs so that all 
children can begin school ready to learn.
  This is a truly bipartisan bill, and it is a privilege to be working 
closely with Senators of both parties on this issue that is so critical 
to the nation's future--the education of our children. Senator Stevens' 
knowledge of childhood development and brain research is outstanding, 
and his commitment to this issue is impressive. He understands the 
impact that early education can have on a child's development. Senator 
Kerry shares this interest as well. His work on the importance of brain 
development during the early childhood years has helped educate the 
Senate on this issue. Senator Jeffords' long standing interest in 
education and school readiness is exemplary. I have great respect for 
his leadership as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee on education and many other issues to improve the 
well-being of children. Senator Dodd's leadership on the Subcommittee 
for Children and Families has been outstanding. He has always been a 
champion for children's issues and we are proud to have him as a 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  Over 23 million children under 6 live in the United States, and all 
of these children deserve the opportunity to start school ready to 
learn. In order for them to do so, we must make significant investments 
in children, long before they ever walk through the schoolhouse door.
  Recent brain research documents the importance of the first few years 
of life for child development. During this time, children develop 
essential learning and social skills that they will need and use 
throughout their lives.
  For children to reach their full potential, they must begin school 
ready to learn. Ten years ago, the nation's governors developed a set 
of educational goals to improve the quality of education in the United 
States. The number one goal was that by the year 2000, all children 
should enter school ``ready to learn.'' While it is no longer possible 
to meet this objective by the year 2000, we must do all we can. We 
cannot afford to let another decade pass without investing more 
effectively in children's educational development.
  Quality early education programs help children in a number of ways, 
and have a particularly strong impact on low-income children, who are 
at the greatest risk of school failure. Children who attend high 
quality preschool classes have stronger language, math, and social 
skills than children who attended classes of inferior quality.
  These early skills translate into greater school readiness. First 
graders who begin school with strong language and learning skills are 
more motivated to learn to read well, and they benefit more from 
classroom instruction. Quality early education programs also have 
important long range consequences, and are closely associated with 
increased academic achievement, higher adult earnings, and far less 
involvement with the criminal justice system.
  Research consistently demonstrates that early education programs 
improve school readiness. But too many children have no access to these 
programs. Sixty-one percent of children age 3-5 whose parents earn 
$50,000 or more a year are enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes. But, 
only 36% of children in the same age group in families earning less 
than $15,000 are enrolled in such classes. Clearly, many children are 
not receiving the educational boost they need to begin school ``ready 
to read, ready to learn, and ready to succeed.''
  Our bill provides 10 billion dollars over five years to states to 
strengthen and expand early education programs for children under 6. By 
increasing the number of children who have early learning 
opportunities, we will ensure that many more children begin school 
ready to learn.
  The ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' will provide each state with funds 
to strengthen and improve early education. Governors will receive the 
grants, and communities, along with parents, will decide how these 
funds can best be used. The aid will be distributed based on a formula 
which takes into account the total number of young children in each 
state, and the Department of Health and Human Services will allocate 
funds to the states. To assist in this process, governors will appoint 
a state council of representatives from the office of the governor, 
relevant state agencies, Head Start, parental organizations, and 
resource and referral agencies--all experts in the field of early 
education. The state councils will be responsible for setting 
priorities, approving and implementing state plans to improve early 
education.
  States will have the flexibility to invest in an array of strategies 
that give young children the building blocks to become good readers and 
good students. States may use their funds to support a wide range of 
activities including: (1) strengthening pre-kindergarten services and 
helping communities obtain the resources necessary to offer children a 
good start; (2) helping communities make the best use of early learning 
programs to ensure that their resources are used most effectively; (3) 
ensuring that special needs children have access to the early learning 
services they need to reach their full potential; (4) strengthening 
Early

[[Page S3488]]

Head Start to meet the learning needs of very young children; and (5) 
expanding Head Start to include full-day, year-round services to help 
children of working parents begin school ready to learn. The specific 
strategy that states decide to adopt is not the central issue--
improving school readiness is the central issue. And this bill will 
give states the flexibility and funding they need to achieve this goal.
  Children and families across the country will benefit from the Early 
Learning Trust Fund. Massachusetts has more than 480,000 children under 
the age of 6, and a significant number will be helped by this 
legislation. Far too many children are currently on waiting lists today 
for assistance like this. We cannot tell these children, ``Wait until 
you grow up to receive the education you deserve.''
  Those on the front lines trying to meet these needs in their 
communities will receive reinforcements. For example, in Massachusetts, 
the Community Partnerships for Children provide full-day early care and 
education to 15,300 three- and four-year-olds from low-income families. 
The Early Learning Trust Fund will expand and strengthen exemplary 
initiatives such as this.
  Investment in early education is strongly supported by organizations 
across the country, including the Children's Defense Fund, the National 
Governors' Association, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, the National 
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Services, the National 
Association for State Legislatures, and the National Association for 
the Education of Young Children. These organizations agree that 
investments in children in the early years not only make sense, but 
make an enormous difference.
  Our nation's greatest resource is its children. We must do all we can 
to ensure that they reach their full potential. Improving school 
readiness is an essential first step. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important initiative. I look forward to its enactment, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill may be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 749

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Early Learning Trust Fund 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) brain development research shows that the first 3 years 
     of a child's life are critical to a child's brain development 
     and the child's future success;
       (2) high quality early learning programs can increase the 
     literacy rate, the high school graduation rate, the 
     employment rate, and the college enrollment rate for 
     prekindergarten children who participate in the programs;
       (3) high quality early learning programs can decrease the 
     incidence of teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, arrest, 
     and juvenile delinquency for children who participate in 
     these programs;
       (4) high quality early learning programs can provide a 
     strong base for prekindergarten children in language and 
     cognitive skills and can motivate the children to learn to 
     read in order to benefit from classroom instruction;
       (5) many working families cannot afford early learning 
     programs for their prekindergarten children;
       (6) only 36 percent of children who are between the ages of 
     3 and 5, not enrolled in kindergarten, and living in families 
     in which the parents earn less than $15,000, are enrolled in 
     prekindergarten, while 61 percent of children of a similar 
     age who live in families in which the parents earn $50,000 or 
     more are enrolled in prekindergarten;
       (7) because of the growing number of prekindergarten 
     children in single-parent families or families in which both 
     parents work, there is a great need for affordable high 
     quality, full day, full calendar year early learning 
     programs;
       (8) many children who could benefit from a strong early 
     learning experience are enrolled in child care programs that 
     could use additional resources to prepare the children to 
     enter school ready to succeed; and
       (9) the low salaries paid to staff in early learning 
     programs, the lack of career progression for such staff, and 
     the lack of child development specialists involved in the 
     early learning programs makes it difficult to attract and 
     retain trained staff to help the children enter school ready 
     to read.
       (b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to make widely available to prekindergarten children a 
     high quality, child-centered, developmentally appropriate 
     early learning program;
       (2) to make widely available to parents of prekindergarten 
     children who desire the services, a full day, full calendar 
     year program in which they can enroll their prekindergarten 
     children;
       (3) to make efficient use of Federal, State, and local 
     resources for early learning programs by promoting 
     collaboration and coordination of such programs and supports 
     at the Federal, State, and local levels;
       (4) to assist State and local governments in expanding or 
     improving early learning programs that use existing 
     facilities that meet State and local safety code 
     requirements;
       (5) to provide resources to ensure that all children enter 
     elementary school ready to learn how to read; and
       (6) to assist State and local governments in providing 
     training for teachers and staff of early learning programs, 
     and to promote the use of salary scales that take into 
     account training and experience.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Early learning programs.--The term ``early learning 
     programs'' means programs that provide the services described 
     in section 9 that are for children who have not attended 
     kindergarten or elementary school.
       (2) Full calendar year.--The term ``full calendar year'' 
     means all days of operation of businesses in the locality, 
     excluding--
       (A) legal public holidays, as defined in section 6103 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and
       (B) a single period of 14 consecutive days during the 
     summer.
       (3) Full day.--The term ``full day'' means the hours of 
     normal operation of businesses in the locality.
       (4) Local educational agency; state educational agency.--
     The terms ``local educational agency'' and ``State 
     educational agency'' have the meanings given the terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (5) Locality.--The term ``locality'' means a city, county, 
     borough, township, or other general purpose unit of local 
     government, or an Indian reservation or Indian Tribe. For 
     purposes of this Act, 2 or more localities acting together 
     may be considered a locality.
       (6) Parent.--The term ``parent'' means a biological parent, 
     an adoptive parent, a stepparent, or a foster parent of a 
     child, including a legal guardian or other person standing in 
     loco parentis.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (8) Service provider.--The term ``service provider'' means 
     any public or private early learning program, including a 
     local educational agency, a Head Start agency under the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), or a community-based 
     organization that receives funds under this Act.
       (9) Training.--The term ``training'' means instruction in 
     early childhood development that--
       (A) is required for certification by existing State and 
     local laws, regulations, and policies;
       (B) is required to receive a nationally recognized 
     credential or its equivalent, such as the child development 
     associate credential, in a State with no certification 
     procedure; and
       (C) is received in a postsecondary education program in 
     which the individual has accomplished significant course work 
     in early childhood education or early childhood development.

     SEC. 4. EARLY LEARNING PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish and maintain an early 
     learning program that provides full day, full calendar year 
     early learning services.

     SEC. 5. STATE ALLOTMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments to 
     eligible States to pay for the cost of enabling the States 
     and localities to establish full day, full calendar year 
     early learning programs.
       (b) Allotments.--From the amount appropriated under section 
     12 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot, to each 
     eligible State, an amount that bears the same relationship to 
     the amount appropriated as the total number of individuals 
     under age 6 in the State bears to the total number of such 
     individuals in all States.
       (c) Matching Requirement.--The Secretary may not make a 
     grant to a State under subsection (a) unless that State 
     agrees that, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the 
     State in carrying out the program for which the grant was 
     awarded, the State will make available (directly or through 
     donations from public or private entities) non-Federal 
     contributions in an amount equal to not less than $1 dollar 
     for every $4 dollars of Federal funds provided under the 
     grant. The State share of the cost may be provided in cash or 
     in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or 
     services.
       (d) Annual Review.--The allotments provided under 
     subsection (b) shall be subject to annual review by the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 6. STATE APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under section 5, the Governor of a State shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (b) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) a statement ensuring that the Governor of the State has 
     established or designated a State Council that complies with 
     section

[[Page S3489]]

     7(c), including a list of the members of the State Council in 
     order to demonstrate such compliance;
       (2) a statement ensuring that the State Council as 
     described in section 7(c) has developed and approved the 
     application submitted under this section;
       (3) a statement describing the manner in which the State 
     will allocate funds made available through the allotment to 
     localities; and
       (4) a State plan that describes the performance goals to be 
     achieved, and the performance measures to be used to assess 
     progress toward such goals, under the plan which--
       (A) shall be developed pursuant to guidance provided by the 
     State and local government authorities, and experts in early 
     childhood development; and
       (B) shall be designed to improve child development 
     through--
       (i) improved access to and increased coordination with 
     health care services;
       (ii) increased access to enhanced early learning 
     environments;
       (iii) increased parental involvement;
       (iv) increased rates of accreditation by nationally 
     recognized accreditation organizations; and
       (v) expansion of full day, full year services.

     SEC. 7. STATE ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive assistance under 
     section 5, the Governor of a State shall appoint a Lead State 
     Agency as described in subsection (b) and, after consultation 
     with the leadership of the State legislature, a State Council 
     as described in subsection (c).
       (b) Lead State Agency.--
       (1) In general.--The Lead State Agency as described in 
     subsection (a) shall allocate funds received under section 5 
     to localities.
       (2) Limitation.--The Lead State Agency shall allocate not 
     less than 90 percent of such funds that have been provided to 
     the State for a fiscal year to 1 or more localities.
       (3) Functions of agency.--In addition to allocating funds 
     under paragraph (1), the Lead State agency shall--
       (A) advise and assist localities in the performance of 
     their duties;
       (B) develop and submit the State application and the State 
     plan required under section 6;
       (C) evaluate and approve applications submitted by 
     localities;
       (D) prepare and submit to the Secretary an annual report, 
     after approval by the State Council, which shall include a 
     statement describing the manner in which funds received under 
     section 5 are expended and documentation of the increased 
     number of--
       (i) children in full day, full year Head Start programs, as 
     provided under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
       (ii) infants and toddlers in programs that provide 
     comprehensive Early Head Start services, as provided under 
     the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
       (iii) prekindergarten children, including those with 
     special needs, in early learning programs; and
       (iv) children in child care that receive enhanced 
     educational and comprehensive services and supports, 
     including parent involvement and education;
       (E) conduct evaluations of early learning programs;
       (F) ensure that training and research is made available to 
     localities and that such training and research reflects the 
     latest available brain development and early childhood 
     research related to early learning; and
       (G) improve coordination between localities carrying out 
     early learning programs and persons providing early 
     intervention services under part C of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).
       (4) Local application.--
       (A) In general.--To be eligible to receive assistance under 
     paragraph (1), a locality, in cooperation with the Local 
     Council described in paragraph (5), shall submit an 
     application to the Lead State Agency at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Lead State 
     Agency may require.
       (B) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall include a statement ensuring that the 
     locality has established a Local Council, as described in 
     paragraph (5) and a local plan that includes--
       (i) a needs and resources assessment of early learning 
     services and a statement describing how programs will be 
     financed to reflect the assessment; and
       (ii) a statement of performance goals to be achieved in 
     adherence to the State plan and a statement of how localities 
     will ensure that programs will meet the performance measures 
     in the State plan.
       (5) Local council.--
       (A) In general.--To be eligible to receive assistance under 
     paragraph (1), a locality shall establish a Local Council as 
     described in subsection (c), which shall be composed of local 
     agencies responsible for carrying out the programs under this 
     Act and parents and other individuals concerned with early 
     childhood development issues in the locality. The Local 
     Council shall be responsible for assisting localities in 
     preparing and submitting the application described in 
     paragraph (4).
       (B) Designating Existing Entity.--To the extent that a 
     State has a Local Council or an entity that functions as such 
     before the date of enactment of this Act that is comparable 
     to the Local Council described in subparagraph (A), the 
     locality shall be considered to be in compliance with this 
     paragraph.
       (c) State Council.--
       (1) In general.--The State Council as described in 
     subsection (a) shall be composed of a group of 
     representatives of agencies, institutions, and other 
     entities, as described in paragraphs (2) and (3), that 
     provide child care or early learning services in the State.
       (2) Membership.--Except as provided in paragraph (6), the 
     Governor shall appoint to the State Council at least 1 
     representative from--
       (A) the office of the Governor;
       (B) the State educational agency;
       (C) the State agency administering funds received under the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858 et seq.);
       (D) the State social services agency;
       (E) the State Head Start association;
       (F) organizations representing parents within the State; 
     and
       (G) resource and referral agencies within the State.
       (3) Additional members.--In addition to representatives 
     appointed under subparagraph (2), the Governor may appoint to 
     the State Council additional representatives from--
       (A) the State Board of Education;
       (B) the State health agency;
       (C) the State labor or employment agency;
       (D) organizations representing teachers;
       (E) organizations representing business; and
       (F) organizations representing labor.
       (4) Representation.--To the extent practicable, the 
     Governor shall appoint representatives under subparagraphs 
     (2) and (3) in a manner that is diverse or balanced according 
     to the race, ethnicity, and gender of its members.
       (5) Functions of the Council.--The State Council shall--
       (A) conduct a needs and resources assessment, or use such 
     an assessment if conducted not later than 2 years prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act, to--
       (i) determine where early learning programs are lacking or 
     are inadequate within the State, with particular attention to 
     poor urban and rural areas, and what special services are 
     needed within the State, such as services for children whose 
     native language is a language other than English; and
       (ii) identify all existing State-funded early learning 
     programs, and, to the extent practical, other programs 
     serving prekindergarten children in the State, including 
     parent education programs, and to specify which programs 
     might be expanded or upgraded with the use of funds received 
     under section 5; and
       (B) based on the assessment described in subparagraph (A), 
     determine funding priorities for amounts received under 
     section 5 for the State.
       (6) Designating an Existing Entity as State Council.--To 
     the extent that a State has a State Council or a entity that 
     functions as such before the date of enactment of this Act 
     that is comparable to the State Council described in this 
     subsection, the State shall be considered to be in compliance 
     with this subsection.

     SEC. 9. LOCAL ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Each locality that receives funds under 
     section 8 shall, in accordance with the needs and resource 
     assessment described in section 8(c)(5), provide funds to 
     service providers to--
       (1) increase the number of children served in Early Head 
     Start programs carried out under section 645A of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C 9840a);
       (2) increase the number of children served in State 
     prekindergarten education programs;
       (3) increase the number of Head Start programs providing 
     full working day, full calendar year Head Start services; and
       (4) enhance the education and comprehensive services and 
     support services provided through the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) 
     to child care programs and providers, including health 
     screening and diagnosis of children, parent involvement and 
     parent education, nutrition services and education, staff and 
     personnel training in early childhood development, and 
     upgrading the salaries of early childhood development 
     professional staff, and the development of salary schedules 
     for staff with varying levels of experience, expertise, and 
     training.distribute such funds to service providers.
       (b) Preference.--In making allocations under subsection 
     (a), a locality shall give preference to--
       (1) programs that meet the needs of children in households 
     in which each parent is employed;
       (2) programs assisting low-income families; and
       (3) programs that make referrals for enrollment under the 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program established under 
     title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et 
     seq.), or referrals for enrollment of children under the 
     medicaid program established under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
       (c) Application.--Each service provider desiring to receive 
     funds under subsection (a) shall submit an application to a 
     locality at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the locality may reasonably require.
       (d) Annual Report.--Each locality that receives funds under 
     section 8 shall submit an annual report to the State Council 
     that

[[Page S3490]]

     contains the information described in section 7(b)(3)(C) and 
     a description of the manner in which programs receiving 
     assistance under this Act will be coordinated with other 
     early learning programs in the locality.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     amounts received by a locality under section 8 shall be used 
     to pay for administrative expenses for the locality or Local 
     Council.

     SEC. 10. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended to provide services for early learning 
     childhood development programs.

     SEC. 11. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, shall develop and issue program guidance 
     instructions for carrying out the programs authorized under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated and there is 
     appropriated to carry out this Act, $2,000,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 751. A bill to combat nursing home fraud and abuse, increase 
protections for victims of telemarketing fraud, enhance safeguards for 
pension plans and health care benefit programs, and enhance penalties 
for crimes against seniors, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                     The Seniors Safety Act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Seniors Safety 
Act of 1999, a bill to protect older Americans from crime.
  The Seniors Safety Act contains a comprehensive package of proposals 
developed with the assistance of the Department of Justice that address 
the most prevalent crimes perpetrated against seniors, including 
proposals to reduce health care fraud and abuse, combat nursing home 
fraud and abuse, prevent telemarketing fraud, safeguard pension and 
employee benefit plans from fraud, bribery and graft. In addition, this 
legislation would help seniors whose pension plans are defrauded to 
obtain restitution. Finally, the bill authorizes the collection of 
appropriate data and examination by the Attorney General to develop new 
strategies to fight crime against seniors.
  Seniors over the age of 55 make up the most rapidly growing sector of 
our society. In Vermont alone, the number of seniors grew by more than 
nine percent between 1990 and 1997, now comprising almost twelve 
percent of Vermont's total population. According to recent census 
estimates, the number of seniors over 65 will more than double by the 
year 2050.
  It is an ugly fact that criminal activity against seniors that causes 
them physical harm and economic damage is a significant problem. While 
the violent and property crime rates have been falling generally, 
according to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 
1997 the violent victimization rates for persons over 50 years of age 
were no lower than they had been in 1993. In 1997, these older 
Americans experienced approximately 680 thousand incidents of violent 
crime, including rape, robbery, and general assault.
  We need to do better job at protecting seniors and ensuring that they 
enjoy the same decreasing violent and property crime rate as other 
segments of our society. The Seniors Safety Act contains provisions to 
enhance penalties for criminal offenses that target seniors and 
fraudulent acts that result in physical or economic harm to seniors. In 
addition, to assist Congress and law enforcement authorities in 
developing new and effective strategies to deter crimes against 
seniors, the Act authorizes comprehensive examination of the factors 
associated with crimes against seniors and the inclusion of data on 
seniors in the National Crime Victims Survey.
  One particular form of criminal activity--telemarketing fraud--
disproportionately impacts Americans over the age of 50, who account 
for over a third of the estimated $40 billion lost to telemarketing 
fraud each year. The Seniors Safety Act continues the progress we made 
last year on passage of the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act to 
address the problem of telemarketing fraud schemes that too often 
succeed in swindling seniors of their life savings. Some of these 
schemes are directed from outside the United States, making criminal 
prosecution more difficult.
  The Act would provide the Attorney General with a new, significant 
crime fighting tool to deal with telemarketing fraud. Specifically, the 
Act would authorize the Attorney General to block or terminate 
telephone service to telephone facilities that are being used to 
conduct such fraudulent activities. This authority may be used to shut-
down telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by 
cutting off their telephone service and, once discovered, would protect 
victims from that particular telemarketing scheme. Of course, committed 
swindlers may just get another telephone number, but even relatively 
brief interruptions in their fraudulent activities may save some 
seniors from falling victim to the scheme.
  Another crime prevention provision in the Seniors Safety Act is the 
establishment by the Federal Trade Commission of a ``Better Business 
Bureau''-type clearinghouse. This would provide seniors, their 
families, or others who may be concerned about the legitimacy of a 
telemarketer with information about prior complaints made about the 
particular company and any prior convictions for telemarketing fraud. 
In addition, seniors and other consumers who believe they have been 
swindled would be provided with information for referral to the 
appropriate law enforcement authorities.
  Criminal activity that undermines the safety and integrity of pension 
plans and health benefit programs pose threats to all of us, but the 
damage is felt most acutely by seniors who have planned their 
retirements in reliance on the benefits promised by those programs. 
Seniors who have worked faithfully and honestly for years should not 
reach their retirement years only to find that the funds which they 
were relying upon have been stolen. This is a significant problem. 
According the Attorney General's 1997 Annual Report, an interagency 
working group on pension abuse brought 70 criminal cases representing 
more than $90 million in losses to pension plans in 29 districts around 
the country in that year alone.
  The Seniors Safety Act would add to the arsenal of authority that 
federal prosecutors have to prevent and punish the defrauding of 
retirement arrangements. Specifically, the Act would create new 
criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans or obtaining 
money or property from such plans by means of false or fraudulent 
pretenses. In addition, the Act would enhance penalties for bribery and 
graft in connection with employee benefit plans. The only people 
enjoying the benefits of pension plans should be the people who have 
worked hard to fund those plans, not crooks who get the money by fraud.
  Spending on health care in this country amounts to roughly 15 percent 
of the gross national product, or more than $1 trillion each year. 
Estimated losses due to fraud and abuse are astronomical. A December 
1998 report by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) states that 
these losses ``may exceed 10 percent of annual health care spending, or 
$100 billion per year.'' By contrast to health care fraud, which covers 
deliberate criminal efforts to steal money, the term ``abuse'' 
describes billing errors or manipulation of billing codes that can 
result in billing for a more highly reimbursed service or product than 
the one provided.
  As electronic claims processing--with no human involvement --becomes 
more prevalent to save administrative costs, more sophisticated 
computer-generated fraud schemes are surfacing. Some of these schemes 
generate thousands of false claims designed to pass through automated 
claims processing to payment, and result in the theft of millions of 
dollars from federal and private health care programs. Defrauding 
Medicare, Medicaid and private health plans harms taxpayers and 
increases the financial burden on the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries pay 
the price for health care fraud in their copayments and contributions. 
In addition, some forms of fraud may result in inadequate medical care 
and be dangerous for patients. Unfortunately, the NIJ reports that many 
health care fraud schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, 
such as the elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or 
able to complain or alert law enforcement.''
  Fighting health care fraud has been a top priority of this 
Administration and

[[Page S3491]]

this Attorney General. The attention our federal law enforcement 
officials are paying to this problem is paying off: the number of 
criminal convictions in health care fraud cases grew over 300 percent 
from 1992 to 1997. These cases included convictions for submitting 
false claims to Medicare and Medicaid, and other insurance plans; fake 
billings by foreign doctors; and needless prescriptions for durable 
medical equipment by doctors in exchange for kickbacks from 
manufacturers. In 1997 alone, $1.2 billion was awarded or negotiated as 
a result of criminal fines, civil settlements and judgments in health 
care fraud matters.
  We can and must do more, however. The Seniors Safety Act would give 
the Attorney General authority to get an injunction to stop false 
claims and illegal kickback schemes involving federal health care 
programs. This Act would also provide the law enforcement authorities 
with additional investigatory tools to uncover, investigate and 
prosecute health care offenses in both criminal and civil proceedings. 
The use of civil laws is considered by the Justice Department to be a 
``critical component of our enforcement policy.'' In fact, the 
Department has recovered $1.8 billion in False Claims Act (FCA) civil 
enforcement actions since 1986, when Congress amended the FCA to 
address fraud against the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Seniors 
Safety Act will permit criminal prosecutors to share information more 
easily with their civil counterparts.
  In addition, whistle-blowers, who tip-off law enforcement about false 
claims, would be authorized under the Seniors Safety Act to seek court 
permission to review information obtained by the government to enhance 
their assistance in FCA law suits. Such qui tam, or whistle-blower, 
suits have, in the Justice Department's estimation, dramatically 
increased detection of and monetary recoveries for health care fraud. 
More half of the $1.2 billion the Department was awarded in health care 
fraud cases in FY 1997 were related to allegations in qui tam cases. 
This is a successful track record. According to the Department in its 
most recent health care fraud report, ``qui tam plaintiffs often work 
with DOJ to build a strong chain of evidence that can be used during 
settlement discussions or at trial.'' The Act would allow whistle-
blowers and their qui tam suits to become even more effective tools in 
the fight against health care fraud.
  Finally, the Act would extend anti-fraud and anti-kickback safeguards 
to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. These are all 
important steps that will help cut down on the enormous health care 
fraud losses.
  Long-term care planning specialists estimate that over forty percent 
of those turning 65 years of age will need nursing home care, and that 
20 percent of those seniors will spend five years or more in nursing 
homes. Indeed, many of us already have or will live through the 
experience of having our parents, family members or other loved ones--
or even ourselves--spend time in a nursing home. We owe it to them and 
to ourselves to give the residents of nursing homes the best care they 
can get.
  The Justice Department's Health Care Fraud Report for Fiscal Year 
1997 cites egregious examples of nursing homes that pocketed Medicare 
funds instead of providing residents with adequate care. In one case, 
five patients died as result of the inadequate provision of nutrition, 
wound care and diabetes management by three Pennsylvania nursing homes. 
Yet another death occurred when a patient, who was unable to speak, was 
placed in a scalding tub of 138-degree water.
  This Act provides additional piece of mind to residents of nursing 
homes and those of us who may have loved ones there by giving federal 
law enforcement the authority to investigate and prosecute operators of 
nursing homes for willfully engaging in patterns of health and safety 
violations in the care of nursing home residents. The Act also protects 
whistle-blowers from retaliation for reporting such violations.
  The Seniors Safety Act has six titles, described below.
  Title I, titled ``Strategies for Preventing Crimes Against Seniors'': 
directs the Attorney General to study the types of crimes and risk 
factors associated with crimes against seniors. In addition, authority 
is provided in this title for the Attorney General to include 
statistics on the incidence of crimes against seniors in the annual 
National Crime Victims Survey. Collection and analysis of this data is 
critical to develop effective strategies to protect seniors from crime 
and respond effectively to the justice needs of seniors.
  Title II, titled ``Combating Crimes Against Seniors'': provides 
enhanced penalties for crimes targeting seniors, for health care fraud 
and other fraud offenses, and the creation of new criminal and civil 
penalties to protect pension and employee benefit plans.
  Specifically, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to review 
the sentencing guidelines and enhance penalties, as appropriate, to 
adequately reflect the economic and physical harms associated with 
crimes targeted at seniors, and with health care fraud offenses. This 
bill would also increase the penalties under the mail fraud statute and 
wire fraud statute for fraudulent schemes that result in serious injury 
or death.
  In addition, this title of the Seniors Safety Act provides new tools 
in the form of a new criminal provision and civil penalties for law 
enforcement to investigate and prosecute persons who defraud pension 
plans or other retirement arrangements. In addition, the Act increases 
the penalty for corruptly bribing or receiving graft to influence the 
operation and management of employee benefit plans from three to five 
years.
  Title III, titled ``Preventing Telemarketing Fraud'': addresses 
telemarketing fraud in two ways: by providing a ``Better Business''-
style hotline to provide information and log complaints about 
telemarketing fraud, and by allowing the Attorney General to block or 
terminate telephone service to numbers being used to perpetrate 
telemarketing fraud crimes.
  Title IV, titled ``Combating Health Care Fraud'': provides important 
investigative and crime prevention tools to law enforcement authorities 
to uncover and punish health care fraud, including authority to obtain 
injunctive relief, grand jury disclosure for civil actions, and 
issuance of administrative subpoenas. In addition, the Act would better 
protect the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program by extending the 
anti-kickback and anti-fraud prohibitions to cover this program.
  Attorney General's injunction authority: The Act would authorize the 
Attorney General to seek injunctive relief to prevent persons suspected 
of committing or about to commit a health care fraud or illegal 
kickback offense from disposing or dissipating fraudulently obtained 
proceeds.
  Authorized Investigative Demand Procedures: The Attorney General is 
currently authorized to issue administrative subpoenas during 
investigations of criminal health care fraud cases, but cannot do the 
same in related civil cases. The Act would extend that authority to 
civil cases, subject to stringent privacy safeguards.
  Grand Jury Disclosure: Currently, grand jury information may not be 
disclosed in related civil suits, except under limited circumstances, 
resulting in duplicative work on the part of government civil 
attorneys. The Act would allow federal prosecutors to seek a court 
order allowing the sharing of grand jury information regarding health 
care offenses with government civil attorneys for use in civil or other 
regulatory proceedings.
  Extension of anti-fraud safeguards: The Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Act is currently exempt from anti-fraud safeguards available 
to both Medicaid and Medicare. The Act would remove the exemption and 
subject the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to anti-fraud and 
anti-kickback protections.
  Title V, titled ``Protecting Residents of Nursing Homes'': contains 
the ``Nursing Home Resident Protection Act of 1999'' to establish a new 
federal crime, with substantial criminal and civil penalties, against 
operators of nursing homes who engage, knowingly and willfully, in a 
pattern of health and safety violations that results in significant 
physical or mental harm to persons residing in residential health care 
facilities. In addition, whistle-blowers, who tip off officials about 
poor nursing home conditions, would be authorized to sue for damages, 
attorney's fees and other relief should there be any retaliation.

[[Page S3492]]

  Title VI, titled ``Protecting the Rights of Senior Crime Victims'': 
would authorize the Attorney General to use forfeited funds to pay 
restitution to victims of fraudulent activity, and the courts to 
require the forfeiture of proceeds from violations of retirement 
offenses. In addition, the Act would exempt false claims law actions 
from a stay by bankruptcy proceedings and ensure that debts due to the 
United States from false claims law actions are not dischargeable in 
bankruptcy, in order to pay restitution to fraud victims or regulatory 
agencies.
  The Seniors Safety Act of 1999 provides a new safety net for seniors 
to protect them from the criminal activity that affects them the most. 
I commend the Administration and particularly the Vice President for 
his attention to this issue, and the Attorney General for her work and 
assistance on this legislation. We should move to consider and pass 
this legislation before the end of the 106th Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Seniors Safety Act and a 
sectional analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 751

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Seniors 
     Safety Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

       TITLE I--STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTING CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS

Sec. 101. Study of crimes against seniors.
Sec. 102. Inclusion of seniors in national crime victimization survey.

               TITLE II--COMBATING CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS

Sec. 201. Enhanced sentencing penalties based on age of victim.
Sec. 202. Study and report on health care fraud sentences.
Sec. 203. Increased penalties for fraud resulting in serious injury or 
              death.
Sec. 204. Safeguarding pension plans from fraud and theft. 
Sec. 205. Additional civil penalties for defrauding pension plans. 
Sec. 206. Punishing bribery and graft in connection with employee 
              benefit plans.

               TITLE III--PREVENTING TELEMARKETING FRAUD

Sec. 301. Centralized complaint and consumer education service for 
              victims of telemarketing fraud.
Sec. 302. Blocking of telemarketing scams.

                 TITLE IV--PREVENTING HEALTH CARE FRAUD

Sec. 401. Injunctive authority relating to false claims and illegal 
              kickback schemes involving Federal health care programs.
Sec. 402. Authorized investigative demand procedures.
Sec. 403. Extending antifraud safeguards to the Federal employee health 
              benefits program.
Sec. 404. Grand jury disclosure.
Sec. 405. Increasing the effectiveness of civil investigative demands 
              in false claims investigations.

             TITLE V--PROTECTING RESIDENTS OF NURSING HOMES

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Nursing home resident protection.

        TITLE VI--PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF ELDERLY CRIME VICTIMS

Sec. 601. Use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime victims 
              and regulatory agencies.
Sec. 602. Victim restitution.
Sec. 603. Bankruptcy proceedings not used to shield illegal gains from 
              false claims.
Sec. 604. Forfeiture for retirement offenses.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The number of older Americans is growing both 
     numerically and proportionally in the United States. Since 
     1990, the population of seniors has increased by almost 
     5,000,000, and is now 20.2 percent of the United States 
     population.
       (2) In 1997, 7 percent of victims of serious violent crime 
     were age 50 or older.
       (3) In 1997, 17.7 percent of murder victims were age 55 or 
     older.
       (4) According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 
     persons aged 50 and older experienced approximately 673,460 
     incidents of violent crime, including rape and sexual 
     assaults, robberies and general assaults, during 1997.
       (5) Older victims of violent crime are almost twice as 
     likely as younger victims to be raped, robbed, or assaulted 
     at or in their own homes.
       (6) Approximately half of Americans who are 50 years old or 
     older feel afraid to walk alone at night in their own 
     neighborhoods.
       (7) Seniors over the age of 50 reportedly account for 37 
     percent of the estimated $40,000,000,000 in losses each year 
     due to telemarketing fraud.
       (8) In 1998, Congress enacted legislation to provide for 
     increased penalties for telemarketing fraud that targets 
     seniors.
       (9) There has not been a comprehensive study of crimes 
     committed against seniors since 1994.
       (10) It has been estimated that approximately 43 percent of 
     those turning 65 can expect to spend some time in a long-term 
     care facility, and approximately 20 percent can expect to 
     spend 5 years or longer in a such a facility.
       (11) In 1997, approximately $82,800,000,000 was spent on 
     nursing home care in the United States and over half of this 
     amount was spent by the medicaid and medicare programs.
       (12) Losses to fraud and abuse in health care reportedly 
     cost the United States an estimated $100,000,000,000 in 1996.
       (13) The Inspector General for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services has estimated that about $12,600,000,000 in 
     improper medicare benefit payments, due to inadvertent 
     mistake, fraud and abuse, were made during fiscal year 1998.
       (14) Incidents of health care fraud and abuse remain high 
     despite awareness of the problem.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) combat nursing home fraud and abuse;
       (2) enhance safeguards for pension plans and health care 
     programs;
       (3) develop strategies for preventing and punishing crimes 
     that target or otherwise disproportionately affect seniors by 
     collecting appropriate data to measure the extent of crimes 
     committed against seniors and determine the extent of 
     domestic and elder abuse of seniors; and
       (4) prevent and deter criminal activity, such as 
     telemarketing fraud, that results in economic and physical 
     harm against seniors and ensure appropriate restitution.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``crime'' means any criminal offense under 
     Federal or State law;
       (2) the term ``nursing home'' means any institution or 
     residential care facility defined as such for licensing 
     purposes under State law, or if State law does not employ the 
     term nursing home, the equivalent term or terms as determined 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to 
     section 1908(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396g(e)); and
       (3) the term ``senior'' means an individual who is more 
     than 55 years of age.

       TITLE I--STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTING CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS

     SEC. 101. STUDY OF CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study 
     relating to crimes against seniors, in order to assist in 
     developing new strategies to prevent and otherwise reduce the 
     incidence of those crimes.
       (b) Issues Addressed.--The study conducted under this 
     section shall include an analysis of--
       (1) the nature and type of crimes perpetrated against 
     seniors, with special focus on--
       (A) the most common types of crimes that affect seniors;
       (B) the nature and extent of telemarketing fraud against 
     seniors;
       (C) the nature and extent of elder abuse inflicted upon 
     seniors;
       (D) the nature and extent of financial and material fraud 
     targeted at seniors; and
       (E) the nature and extent of health care fraud and abuse 
     targeting seniors;
       (2) the risk factors associated with seniors who have been 
     victimized;
       (3) the manner in which the Federal and State criminal 
     justice systems respond to crimes against seniors;
       (4) the feasibility of States establishing and maintaining 
     a centralized computer database on the incidence of crimes 
     against seniors that will promote the uniform identification 
     and reporting of such crimes;
       (5) the nature and extent of crimes targeting seniors, such 
     as health care fraud and telemarketing fraud originating from 
     sources outside the United States;
       (6) the effectiveness of State programs funded under the 
     1987 State Elder Abuse Prevention Program in preventing and 
     reducing the abuse and neglect of seniors; and
       (7) other effective ways to prevent or reduce the 
     occurrence of crimes against seniors.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report describing the 
     results of the study under this section, which shall also 
     include--
       (1) an assessment of any impact of the sentencing 
     enhancements promulgated by the United States Sentencing 
     Commission pursuant to section 6(b) of the Telemarketing 
     Fraud Prevention Act of 1998 (28 U.S.C. 994 note), 
     including--
       (A) the number of crimes for which sentences were enhanced 
     under that section; and

[[Page S3493]]

       (B) the effect of those enhanced sentences in deterring 
     telemarketing fraud crimes targeting seniors;
       (2) an assessment of the factors that result in the 
     inclusion of seniors on the lists of names, addresses, phone 
     numbers, or Internet addresses compiled by telemarketers or 
     sold to telemarketers as lists of potentially vulnerable 
     consumers (i.e. ``mooch lists''); and
       (3) an assessment of the nature and extent of nursing home 
     fraud and abuse, which shall include--
       (A) the number of cases and financial impact on seniors of 
     fraud and abuse involving nursing homes each year;
       (B) procedures used effectively by State, local and Federal 
     authorities to combat nursing home fraud and abuse; and
       (C) a description of strategies available to consumers to 
     protect themselves from nursing home fraud and an evaluation 
     of the effectiveness of such strategies.

     SEC. 102. INCLUSION OF SENIORS IN NATIONAL CRIME 
                   VICTIMIZATION SURVEY.

       Beginning not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, as part of each National Crime 
     Victimization Survey, the Attorney General shall include 
     statistics relating to--
       (1) crimes targeting or disproportionately affecting 
     seniors; and
       (2) crime risk factors for seniors, including the times and 
     locations at which crimes victimizing seniors are most likely 
     to occur; and
       (3) specific characteristics of the victims of crimes who 
     are seniors, including age, gender, race or ethnicity, and 
     socioeconomic status.

               TITLE II--COMBATING CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS

     SEC. 201. ENHANCED SENTENCING PENALTIES BASED ON AGE OF 
                   VICTIM.

       (a) Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission.--
     Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, 
     United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if 
     appropriate, amend section 3A1.1(a) of the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines to include the age of a crime victim as 1 of the 
     criteria for determining whether the application of a 
     sentencing enhancement is appropriate.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines and the 
     policy statements of the Commission reflect the serious 
     economic and physical harms associated with criminal activity 
     targeted at seniors due to their particular vulnerability;
       (2) consider providing increased penalties for persons 
     convicted of offenses in which the victim was a senior in 
     appropriate circumstances;
       (3) consult with individuals or groups representing 
     seniors, law enforcement agencies, victims organizations, and 
     the Federal judiciary, as part of the review described in 
     subsection (a);
       (4) ensure reasonable consistency with other Federal 
     sentencing guidelines and directives;
       (5) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that may justify exceptions, including circumstances for 
     which the Federal sentencing guidelines provide sentencing 
     enhancements;
       (6) make any necessary conforming changes to the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines; and
       (7) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines 
     adequately meet the purposes of sentencing set forth in 
     section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the 
     Commission shall submit to Congress a report on issues 
     relating to the age of crime victims, which shall include--
       (1) an explanation of any changes to sentencing policy made 
     by the Commission under this section; and
       (2) any recommendations of the Commission for retention or 
     modification of penalty levels, including statutory penalty 
     levels, for offenses involving seniors.

     SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORT ON HEALTH CARE FRAUD SENTENCES.

       (a) Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission.--
     Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, 
     United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if 
     appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and the 
     policy statements of the Commission with respect to persons 
     convicted of offenses involving fraud in connection with a 
     health care benefit program (as defined in section 24(b) of 
     title 18, United States Code).
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines and the 
     policy statements of the Commission reflect the serious harms 
     associated with health care fraud and the need for aggressive 
     and appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such fraud;
       (2) consider providing increased penalties for persons 
     convicted of health care fraud in appropriate circumstances;
       (3) consult with individuals or groups representing victims 
     of health care fraud, law enforcement agencies, the health 
     care industry, and the Federal judiciary as part of the 
     review described in subsection (a);
       (4) ensure reasonable consistency with other Federal 
     sentencing guidelines and directives;
       (5) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for 
     which the Federal sentencing guidelines provide sentencing 
     enhancements;
       (6) make any necessary conforming changes to the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines; and
       (7) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines 
     adequately meet the purposes of sentencing as set forth in 
     section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the 
     Commission shall submit to Congress a report on issues 
     relating to offenses described in subsection (a), which shall 
     include--
       (1) an explanation of any changes to sentencing policy made 
     by the Commission under this section; and
       (2) any recommendations of the Commission for retention or 
     modification of penalty levels, including statutory penalty 
     levels, for those offenses.

     SEC. 203. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR FRAUD RESULTING IN SERIOUS 
                   INJURY OR DEATH.

       Sections 1341 and 1343 of title 18, United States Code, are 
     each amended by inserting before the last sentence the 
     following: ``If the violation results in serious bodily 
     injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title), such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 20 years, or both, and if the violation results in 
     death, such person shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.''.

     SEC. 204. SAFEGUARDING PENSION PLANS FROM FRAUD AND THEFT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1348. Fraud in relation to retirement arrangements

       ``(a) Retirement Arrangement Defined.--In this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `retirement arrangement' 
     means--
       ``(A) any employee pension benefit plan subject to any 
     provision of title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974;
       ``(B) any qualified retirement plan within the meaning of 
     section 4974(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(C) any medical savings account described in section 220 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(D) fund established within the Thrift Savings Fund by 
     the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board pursuant to 
     subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5.
       ``(2) Exception for governmental plan.--Such term does not 
     include any governmental plan (as defined in section 3(32) of 
     title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(32))), except as provided in paragraph 
     (1)(D).
       ``(3) Certain arrangements included.--Such term shall 
     include any arrangement that has been represented to be an 
     arrangement described in any subparagraph of paragraph (1) 
     (whether or not so described).
       ``(b) Prohibition and Penalties.--Whoever executes, or 
     attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice--
       ``(1) to defraud any retirement arrangement or other person 
     in connection with the establishment or maintenance of a 
     retirement arrangement; or
       ``(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
     representations, or promises, any of the money or property 
     owned by, or under the custody or control of, any retirement 
     arrangement or other person in connection with the 
     establishment or maintenance of a retirement arrangement;
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 
     years, or both.
       ``(c) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General may investigate any violation of and otherwise 
     enforce this section.
       ``(2) Effect on other authority.--Nothing in this 
     subsection may be construed to preclude the Secretary of 
     Labor or the head of any other appropriate Federal agency 
     from investigating a violation of this section in relation to 
     a retirement arrangement subject to title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et 
     seq.) or any other provision of Federal law.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 24(a)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``1348,'' after 
     ``1347,''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 63 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``1348. Fraud in relation to retirement arrangements.''.

     SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTIES FOR DEFRAUDING PENSION 
                   PLANS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Action by attorney general.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b)--
       (A) the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the 
     appropriate district court of the United States against any 
     person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under 
     section 1348 of title 18, United States Code, or conspiracy 
     to violate such section 1348; and
       (B) upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the 
     evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty in 
     an amount equal to the greatest of--
       (i) the amount of pecuniary gain to that person;

[[Page S3494]]

       (ii) the amount of pecuniary loss sustained by the victim; 
     or
       (iii) not more than--

       (I) $50,000 for each such violation in the case of an 
     individual; or
       (II) $100,000 for each violation in the case of a person 
     other than an individual.

       (2) No effect on other remedies.--The imposition of a civil 
     penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other 
     statutory, common law, or administrative remedy available by 
     law to the United States or any other person.
       (b) Exception.--No civil penalty may be imposed pursuant to 
     subsection (a) with respect to conduct involving a retirement 
     arrangement that--
       (1) is an employee pension benefit plan subject to title I 
     of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; and
       (2) for which the civil penalties may be imposed under 
     section 502 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132).
       (c) Determination of Penalty Amount.--In determining the 
     amount of the penalty under subsection (a), the district 
     court may consider the effect of the penalty on the violator 
     or other person's ability to--
       (1) restore all losses to the victims; or
       (2) provide other relief ordered in another civil or 
     criminal prosecution related to such conduct, including any 
     penalty or tax imposed on the violator or other person 
     pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

     SEC. 206. PUNISHING BRIBERY AND GRAFT IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS.

       Section 1954 of title 18, United State Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1954. Bribery and graft in connection with employee 
       benefit plans

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `employee benefit plan' means any employee 
     welfare benefit plan or employee pension benefit plan subject 
     to any provision of title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974;
       ``(2) the terms `employee organization', `administrator', 
     and `employee benefit plan sponsor' mean any employee 
     organization, administrator, or plan sponsor, as defined in 
     title I of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974; and
       ``(3) the term `applicable person' means a person who is--
       ``(A) an administrator, officer, trustee, custodian, 
     counsel, agent, or employee of any employee benefit plan;
       ``(B) an officer, counsel, agent, or employee of an 
     employer or an employer any of whose employees are covered by 
     such plan;
       ``(C) an officer, counsel, agent, or employee of an 
     employee organization any of whose members are covered by 
     such plan;
       ``(D) a person who, or an officer, counsel, agent, or 
     employee of an organization that, provides benefit plan 
     services to such plan; or
       ``(E) a person with actual or apparent influence or 
     decisionmaking authority in regard to such plan.
       ``(b) Bribery and Graft.--Whoever--
       ``(1) being an applicable person, receives or agrees to 
     receive or solicits, any fee, kickback, commission, gift, 
     loan, money, or thing of value, personally or for any other 
     person, because of or with the intent to be corruptly 
     influenced with respect to any action, decision, or duty of 
     that applicable person relating to any question or matter 
     concerning an employee benefit plan;
       ``(2) directly or indirectly, gives or offers, or promises 
     to give or offer, any fee, kickback, commission, gift, loan, 
     money, or thing of value, to any applicable person, because 
     of or with the intent to be corruptly influenced with respect 
     to any action, decision, or duty of that applicable person 
     relating to any question or matter concerning an employee 
     benefit plan; or
       ``(3) attempts to give, accept, or receive any thing of 
     value with the intent to be corruptly influenced in violation 
     of this subsection;

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(c) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to apply to any--
       ``(1) payment to or acceptance by any person of bona fide 
     salary, compensation, or other payments made for goods or 
     facilities actually furnished or for services actually 
     performed in the regular course of his duties as an 
     applicable person; or
       ``(2) payment to or acceptance in good faith by any 
     employee benefit plan sponsor, or person acting on the 
     sponsor's behalf, of any thing of value relating to the 
     sponsor's decision or action to establish, terminate, or 
     modify the governing instruments of an employee benefit plan 
     in a manner that does not violate title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or any regulation or 
     order promulgated thereunder, or any other provision of law 
     governing the plan.''.

               TITLE III--PREVENTING TELEMARKETING FRAUD

     SEC. 301. CENTRALIZED COMPLAINT AND CONSUMER EDUCATION 
                   SERVICE FOR VICTIMS OF TELEMARKETING FRAUD.

       (a) Centralized Service.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Federal Trade Commission shall, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General, establish procedures 
     to--
       (A) log and acknowledge the receipt of complaints by 
     individuals who certify that they have a reasonable belief 
     that they have been the victim of fraud in connection with 
     the conduct of telemarketing (as that term is defined in 
     section 2325 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 302(a) of this Act);
       (B) provide to individuals described in subparagraph (A), 
     and to any other persons, information on telemarketing fraud, 
     including--
       (i) general information on telemarketing fraud, including 
     descriptions of the most common telemarketing fraud schemes;
       (ii) information on means of referring complaints on 
     telemarketing fraud to appropriate law enforcement agencies, 
     including the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the attorneys general of the States, and the 
     national toll-free telephone number on telemarketing fraud 
     established by the Attorney General; and
       (iii) information, if available, on the number of 
     complaints of telemarketing fraud against particular 
     companies and any record of convictions for telemarketing 
     fraud by particular companies for which a specific request 
     has been made; and
       (C) refer complaints described in subparagraph (A) to 
     appropriate entities, including State consumer protection 
     agencies or entities and appropriate law enforcement 
     agencies, for potential law enforcement action.
       (2) Central location.--The service under the procedures 
     under paragraph (1) shall be provided at and through a single 
     site selected by the Commission for that purpose.
       (3) Commencement.--The Commission shall commence carrying 
     out the service not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Creation of Fraud Conviction Database.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Attorney General shall establish and 
     maintain a computer database containing information on the 
     corporations and companies convicted of offenses for 
     telemarketing fraud under Federal and State law. The database 
     shall include a description of the type and method of the 
     fraud scheme for which each corporation or company covered by 
     the database was convicted.
       (2) Use of database.--The Attorney General shall make 
     information in the database available to the Federal Trade 
     Commission for purposes of providing information as part of 
     the service under subsection (a).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 302. BLOCKING OF TELEMARKETING SCAMS.

       (a) Expansion of Scope of Telemarketing Fraud Subject to 
     Enhanced Criminal Penalties.--Section 2325(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``telephone 
     calls'' and inserting ``wire communications utilizing a 
     telephone service''.
       (b) Blocking or Termination of Telephone Service Associated 
     With Telemarketing Fraud.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 113A of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2328. Blocking or termination of telephone service

       ``(a) In General.--If a common carrier subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission is 
     notified in writing by the Attorney General, acting within 
     the Attorney General's jurisdiction, that any wire 
     communications facility furnished by such common carrier is 
     being used or will be used by a subscriber for the purpose of 
     transmitting or receiving a wire communication in interstate 
     or foreign commerce for the purpose of executing any scheme 
     or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by 
     means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or 
     promises, in connection with the conduct of telemarketing, 
     the common carrier shall discontinue or refuse the leasing, 
     furnishing, or maintaining of the facility to or for the 
     subscriber after reasonable notice to the subscriber.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Damages.--No damages, penalty, or 
     forfeiture, whether civil or criminal, shall be found or 
     imposed against any common carrier for any act done by the 
     common carrier in compliance with a notice received from the 
     Attorney General under this section.
       ``(c) Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to prejudice the right of any person affected thereby to 
     secure an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by 
     law, in a Federal court, that--
       ``(A) the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of a facility 
     should not be discontinued or refused under this section; or
       ``(B) the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of a facility 
     that has been so discontinued or refused should be restored.
       ``(2) Supporting information.--In any action brought under 
     this subsection, the court may direct that the Attorney 
     General present evidence in support of the notice made under 
     subsection (a) to which such action relates.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Reasonable notice to the subscriber.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `reasonable notice to the 
     subscriber', in the case of a subscriber of a common carrier, 
     means any information necessary to provide notice to the 
     subscriber that--
       ``(i) the wire communications facilities furnished by the 
     common carrier may not be used for the purpose of 
     transmitting, receiving, forwarding, or delivering a wire 
     communication in interstate or foreign commerce

[[Page S3495]]

     for the purpose of executing any scheme or artifice to 
     defraud in connection with the conduct of telemarketing; and
       ``(ii) such use constitutes sufficient grounds for the 
     immediate discontinuance or refusal of the leasing, 
     furnishing, or maintaining of the facilities to or for the 
     subscriber.
       ``(B) Included matter.--The term includes any tariff filed 
     by the common carrier with the Federal Communications 
     Commission that contains the information specified in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Wire communication.--The term `wire communication' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 2510(1) of this 
     title.
       ``(3) Wire communications facility.--The term `wire 
     communications facility' means any facility (including 
     instrumentalities, personnel, and services) used by a common 
     carrier for purposes of the transmission, receipt, 
     forwarding, or delivery of wire communications.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for that chapter is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``2328. Blocking or termination of telephone service.''.

                 TITLE IV--PREVENTING HEALTH CARE FRAUD

     SEC. 401. INJUNCTIVE AUTHORITY RELATING TO FALSE CLAIMS AND 
                   ILLEGAL KICKBACK SCHEMES INVOLVING FEDERAL 
                   HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1345(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) committing or about to commit an offense under 
     section 1128B of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
     7b);''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``a violation of 
     paragraph (1)(D) or'' before ``a banking''.
       (b) Civil Actions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1128B of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Civil Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may bring an action 
     in the appropriate district court of the United States to 
     impose upon any person who carries out any activity in 
     violation of this section with respect to a Federal health 
     care program a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for 
     each such violation, or damages of 3 times the total 
     remuneration offered, paid, solicited, or received, whichever 
     is greater.
       ``(2) Existence of violation.--A violation exists under 
     paragraph (1) if 1 or more purposes of the remuneration is 
     unlawful, and the damages shall be the full amount of such 
     remuneration.
       ``(3) Procedures.--An action under paragraph (1) shall be 
     governed by--
       ``(A) the procedures with regard to subpoenas, statutes of 
     limitations, standards of proof, and collateral estoppel set 
     forth in section 3731 of title 31, United States Code; and
       ``(B) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(4) No effect on other remedies.--Nothing in this section 
     may be construed to affect the availability of any other 
     criminal or civil remedy.
       ``(h) Injunctive Relief.--The Attorney General may commence 
     a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States to enjoin a violation of this section, as provided in 
     section 1345 of title 18, United States Code.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 1128B of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b) is amended by 
     inserting ``AND CIVIL'' after ``CRIMINAL''.

     SEC. 402. AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND PROCEDURES.

       Section 3486 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any allegation 
     of fraud or false claims (whether criminal or civil) in 
     connection with a Federal health care program (as defined in 
     section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
     7b(f))),'' after ``Federal health care offense,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Privacy Protection.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     record (including any book, paper, document, electronic 
     medium, or other object or tangible thing) produced pursuant 
     to a subpoena issued under this section that contains 
     personally identifiable health information may not be 
     disclosed to any person, except pursuant to a court order 
     under subsection (e)(1).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--A record described in paragraph (1) may 
     be disclosed--
       ``(A) to an attorney for the government for use in the 
     performance of the official duty of the attorney (including 
     presentation to a Federal grand jury);
       ``(B) to such government personnel (including personnel of 
     a State or subdivision of a State) as are determined to be 
     necessary by an attorney for the government to assist an 
     attorney for the government in the performance of the 
     official duty of that attorney to enforce Federal criminal 
     law;
       ``(C) as directed by a court preliminarily to or in 
     connection with a judicial proceeding; and
       ``(D) as permitted by a court--
       ``(i) at the request of a defendant in an administrative, 
     civil, or criminal action brought by the United States, upon 
     a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to exclude 
     evidence obtained under this section; or
       ``(E) at the request of an attorney for the government, 
     upon a showing that such matters may disclose a violation of 
     State criminal law, to an appropriate official of a State or 
     subdivision of a State for the purpose of enforcing such law.
       ``(3) Manner of court ordered disclosures.--If a court 
     orders the disclosure of any record described in paragraph 
     (1), the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such 
     time, and under such conditions as the court may direct and 
     shall be undertaken in a manner that preserves the 
     confidentiality and privacy of individuals who are the 
     subject of the record, unless disclosure is required by the 
     nature of the proceedings, in which event the attorney for 
     the government shall request that the presiding judicial or 
     administrative officer enter an order limiting the disclosure 
     of the record to the maximum extent practicable, including 
     redacting the personally identifiable health information from 
     publicly disclosed or filed pleadings or records.
       ``(4) Destruction of records.--Any record described in 
     paragraph (1), and all copies of that record, in whatever 
     form (including electronic) shall be destroyed not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the record is produced, 
     unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, upon a showing of good cause.
       ``(5) Effect of violation.--Any person who knowingly fails 
     to comply with this subsection may be punished as in contempt 
     of court.
       ``(g) Personally Identifiable Health Information Defined.--
     In this section, the term `personally identifiable health 
     information' means any information, including genetic 
     information, demographic information, and tissue samples 
     collected from an individual, whether oral or recorded in any 
     form or medium, that--
       ``(1) relates to the past, present, or future physical or 
     mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of 
     health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future 
     payment for the provision of health care to an individual; 
     and
       ``(2) either--
       ``(A) identifies an individual; or
       ``(B) with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to 
     believe that the information can be used to identify an 
     individual.''.

     SEC. 403. EXTENDING ANTIFRAUD SAFEGUARDS TO THE FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

       Section 1128B(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-7b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``(other than the 
     health insurance program under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code)''.

     SEC. 404. GRAND JURY DISCLOSURE.

       Section 3322 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Grand Jury Disclosure.--Subject to section 3486(f), 
     upon ex parte motion of an attorney for the government 
     showing that such disclosure would be of assistance to 
     enforce any provision of Federal law, a court may direct the 
     disclosure of any matter occurring before a grand jury during 
     an investigation of a Federal health care offense (as defined 
     in section 24(a) of this title) to an attorney for the 
     government to use in any investigation or civil proceeding 
     relating to fraud or false claims in connection with a 
     Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(f))).''.

     SEC. 405. INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE 
                   DEMANDS IN FALSE CLAIMS INVESTIGATIONS.

       Section 3733 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), in the second sentence, by 
     inserting ``, except to the Deputy Attorney General or to an 
     Assistant Attorney General'' before the period at the end; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (i)(2)(C), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Disclosure of information to a person who brings 
     a civil action under section 3730, or such person's counsel, 
     shall be allowed only upon application to a United States 
     district court showing that such disclosure would assist the 
     Department of Justice in carrying out its statutory 
     responsibilities.''.

             TITLE V--PROTECTING RESIDENTS OF NURSING HOMES

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Nursing Home Resident 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 502. NURSING HOME RESIDENT PROTECTION.

       (a) Protection of Residents in Nursing Homes and Other 
     Residential Health Care Facilities.--Chapter 63 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1349. Pattern of violations resulting in harm to 
       residents of nursing homes and related facilities.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Entity.--The term `entity' means any residential 
     health care facility (including facilities that do not 
     exclusively provide residential health care services), any 
     entity that manages a residential health care facility, or

[[Page S3496]]

     any entity that owns, directly or indirectly, a controlling 
     interest or a 50 percent or greater interest in 1 or more 
     residential health care facilities including States, 
     localities, and political subdivisions thereof.
       ``(2) Federal health care program.--The term `Federal 
     health care program' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act.
       ``(3) Pattern of violations.--The term `pattern of 
     violations' means multiple violations of a single Federal or 
     State law, regulation, or rule or single violations of 
     multiple Federal or State laws, regulations, or rules, that 
     are widespread, systemic, repeated, similar in nature, or 
     result from a policy or practice.
       ``(4) Residential health care facility.--The term 
     `residential health care facility' means any facility 
     (including any facility that does not exclusively provide 
     residential health care services) including skilled and 
     unskilled nursing facilities and mental health and mental 
     retardation facilities, that--
       ``(A) receives Federal funds, directly from the Federal 
     Government or indirectly from a third party on contract with 
     or receiving a grant or other monies from the Federal 
     government, to provide health care; or
       ``(B) provides health care services in a residential 
     setting and, in any calendar year in which a violation 
     occurs, is the recipient of benefits or payments in excess of 
     $10,000 from a Federal health care program.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
     States.
       ``(b) Prohibition and Penalties.--Whoever knowingly and 
     willfully engages in a pattern of violations that affects the 
     health, safety, or care of individuals residing in a 
     residential health care facility or facilities, and that 
     results in significant physical or mental harm to 1 or more 
     of such residents, shall be punished as provided in section 
     1347, except that any organization shall be fined not more 
     than $2,000,000 per residential health care facility.
       ``(c) Civil Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may bring an action 
     in a district court of the United States to impose on any 
     individual or entity that engages in a pattern of violations 
     that affects the health, safety, or care of individuals 
     residing in a residential health care facility, and that 
     results in physical or mental harm to 1 or more such 
     residents, a civil penalty or--
       ``(A) in the case of an individual (other than an owner, 
     operator, officer or manager of such a residential health 
     care facility), not more than $10,000;
       ``(B) in the case of an individual who is an owner, 
     operator, officer, or manager of such a residential health 
     care facility, not more than $100,000 for each separate 
     facility involved in the pattern of violations under this 
     section; or
       ``(C) in the case of a residential health care facility, 
     not more than $1,000,000 for each pattern of violations, and 
     in the case of an entity, not more than $1,000,000 for each 
     separate residential health care facility involved in the 
     pattern of violations owned or managed by that entity.
       ``(2) Other appropriate relief.--If the Attorney General 
     has reason to believe that an individual or entity is 
     engaging in or is about to engage in a pattern of violations 
     that would affect the health, safety, or care of individuals 
     residing in a residential health care facility, and that 
     results in or has the potential to result in physical or 
     mental harm to 1 or more such residents, the Attorney General 
     may petition an appropriate district court of the United 
     States for appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to 
     eliminate the pattern of violations.
       ``(3) Procedures.--In any action under this subsection--
       ``(A) a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a 
     trial or hearing may be served at any place in the United 
     States;
       ``(B) the action may not be brought more than 6 years after 
     the date on which the violation occurs;
       ``(C) the United States shall be required to prove each 
     charge by a preponderance of the evidence;
       ``(D) the civil investigative demand procedures set forth 
     in the Antitrust Civil Process Act (15 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) 
     and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto shall apply to 
     any investigation; and
       ``(E) the filing or resolution of a matter shall not 
     preclude any other remedy that is available to the United 
     States or any other person.
       ``(d) Prohibition Against Retaliation.--Any person who is 
     the subject of retaliation, either directly or indirectly, 
     for reporting a condition that may constitute grounds for 
     relief under this section may bring an action in an 
     appropriate district court of the United States for damages, 
     attorneys' fees, and other relief.''.
       (b) Authorized Investigative Demand Procedures.--Section 
     3486(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``or act or activity involving section 1349 of this 
     title'' after ``Federal health care offense''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 63 of 
     title 18 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``1349. Pattern of violations resulting in harm to residents of nursing 
              homes and related facilities.''.

        TITLE VI--PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF ELDERLY CRIME VICTIMS

     SEC. 601. USE OF FORFEITED FUNDS TO PAY RESTITUTION TO CRIME 
                   VICTIMS AND REGULATORY AGENCIES.

       Section 981(e) of this title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in each of paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), by striking 
     ``in the case of property referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)(C)'' and inserting ``in the case of property forfeited 
     in connection with an offense resulting in a pecuniary loss 
     to a financial institution or regulatory agency'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) as restoration to any victim of the offense giving 
     rise to the forfeiture, including, in the case of a money 
     laundering offense, any offense constituting the underlying 
     specified unlawful activity; or''; and
       (3) in paragraph (7), by striking ``in the case of property 
     referred to in subsection (a)(1)(D)'' and inserting ``in the 
     case of property forfeited in connection with an offense 
     relating to the sale of assets acquired or held by any 
     Federal financial institution or regulatory agency, or person 
     appointed by such agency, as receiver, conservator, or 
     liquidating agent for an financial institution''.

     SEC. 602. VICTIM RESTITUTION.

       Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     853) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Victim Restitution.--
       ``(1) Satisfaction of order of restitution.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     a defendant may not use property subject to forfeiture under 
     this section to satisfy an order of restitution.
       ``(B) Exception.--If there are 1 or more identifiable 
     victims entitled to restitution from a defendant, and the 
     defendant has no assets other than the property subject to 
     forfeiture with which to pay restitution to the victim or 
     victims, the attorney for the Government may move to dismiss 
     a forfeiture allegation against the defendant before entry of 
     a judgment of forfeiture in order to allow the property to be 
     used by the defendant to pay restitution in whatever manner 
     the court determines to be appropriate if the court grants 
     the motion. In granting a motion under this subparagraph, the 
     court shall include a provision ensuring that costs 
     associated with the identification, seizure, management, and 
     disposition of the property are recovered by the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Restoration of forfeited property.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an order of forfeiture is entered 
     pursuant to this section and the defendant has no assets 
     other than the forfeited property to pay restitution to 1 or 
     more identifiable victims who are entitled to restitution, 
     the Government shall restore the forfeited property to the 
     victims pursuant to subsection (i)(1) once the ancillary 
     proceeding under subsection (n) has been completed and the 
     costs of the forfeiture action have been deducted.
       ``(B) Distribution of property.--On motion of the attorney 
     for the Government, the court may enter any order necessary 
     to facilitate the distribution of any property restored under 
     this paragraph.
       ``(3) Victim defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `victim'--
       ``(A) means a person other than a person with a legal 
     right, title, or interest in the forfeited property 
     sufficient to satisfy the standing requirements of subsection 
     (n)(2) who may be entitled to restitution from the forfeited 
     funds pursuant to section 9.8 of part 9 of title 28, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor to that regulation); 
     and
       ``(B) includes any person who is the victim of the offense 
     giving rise to the forfeiture, or of any offense that was 
     part of the same scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal 
     activity, including, in the case of a money laundering 
     offense, any offense constituting the underlying specified 
     unlawful activity.''.

     SEC. 603. BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NOT USED TO SHIELD ILLEGAL 
                   GAINS FROM FALSE CLAIMS.

       (a) Certain Actions Not Stayed by Bankruptcy Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the commencement or continuation of an action under 
     section 3729 of title 31, United States Code, does not 
     operate as a stay under section 105(a) or 362(a)(1) of title 
     11, United States Code.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 362(b) of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (17), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(19) the commencement or continuation of an action under 
     section 3729 of title 31.''.
       (b) Certain Debts Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy.--Section 
     523 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 
     1228(b), or 1328(b) does not discharge a debtor from a debt 
     owed for violating section 3729 of title 31.''.
       (c) Repayment of Certain Debts Considered Final.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 11, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 111. False claims

       ``No transfer on account of a debt owed to the United 
     States for violating 3729 of title

[[Page S3497]]

     31, or under a compromise order or other agreement resolving 
     such a debt may be avoided under section 544, 545, 547, 548, 
     549, 553(b), or 742(a).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``111. False claims.''.

     SEC. 604. FORFEITURE FOR RETIREMENT OFFENSES.

       (a) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Criminal forfeiture.--
       ``(A) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on a 
     person convicted of a retirement offense, shall order the 
     person to forfeit property, real or personal, that 
     constitutes or that is derived, directly or indirectly, from 
     proceeds traceable to the commission of the offense.
       ``(B) Retirement offense defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `retirement offense' means a violation of any of the 
     following provisions of law, if the violation, conspiracy, or 
     solicitation relates to a retirement arrangement (as defined 
     in section 1348 of title 18, United States Code):
       ``(i) Section 664, 1001, 1027, 1341, 1343, 1348, 1951, 
     1952, or 1954 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(ii) Sections 411, 501, or 511 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1111, 1131, 1141).''.
       (b) Civil Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(G) Any property, real or personal, that constitutes or 
     is derived, directly or indirectly, from proceeds traceable 
     to the commission of a violation of, a criminal conspiracy to 
     violated or solicitation to commit a crime of violence 
     involving a retirement offense (as defined in section 
     982(a)(9)(B)).''.

        Seniors Safety Act of 1999--Section by Section Analysis

       SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. The Act may be cited as the Seniors 
     Safety Act of 1999.
       SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. The Act enumerates 14 
     findings on the incidence of crimes against seniors, the 
     large percentages of seniors who can expect to spend time in 
     nursing homes, the amount of Federal money spent on nursing 
     home care and the estimated losses due to fraud and abuse in 
     the health care industry.
       The purposes of the Act are to combat abuse in nursing 
     homes, enhance safeguards for pension plans and health 
     benefit programs, develop strategies for preventing and 
     punishing crimes against seniors as well as collecting 
     information about such crimes, preventing and deterring 
     criminal activity that results in economic and physical harm 
     to seniors, and ensuring appropriate restitution.
       SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. Definitions are provided for the 
     following terms: (1) ``Crime'' is defined as any criminal 
     offense under Federal or State law; (2) ``Nursing home'' is 
     defined as any institution or residential care facility 
     defined as such for licensing purposes under state law, or 
     the federal equivalent; and (3) ``Seniors'' is defined as 
     individuals who are more than 55 years old.


       TITLE I--STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTING CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS

       SEC. 101. STUDY OF CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS.
       The Act directs the Attorney General to conduct a study 
     addressing, inter alia, the types of crimes and risk factors 
     associated with crimes against seniors, and develop new 
     strategies to prevent and reduce crimes against seniors. The 
     results of this study shall be reported to the Senate and 
     House Judiciary Committees within 18 months.
       SEC. 102. INCLUSION OF SENIORS IN THE NATIONAL CRIME 
     VICTIMS SURVEY.
       The Act provides that within two years of its enactment, 
     the Attorney General shall include in the National Crime 
     Victimization Survey (NCVS) statistics relating to crimes and 
     risk factors associated with crimes against seniors.


               TITLE II--COMBATING CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS

       SEC. 201. ENHANCED SENTENCING PENALTIES BASED ON AGE OF 
     VICTIM.
       (a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. 
     The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to review and, if 
     appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines to include age 
     as one of the criteria for determining whether a sentencing 
     enhancement is appropriate.
       (b) REQUIREMENTS. During its review, the Sentencing 
     Commission shall: ensure that the guidelines adequately 
     reflect the economic and physical harms associated with 
     criminal activity targeted at seniors; consider providing 
     increased penalties for offenses where the victim was a 
     senior; consult with seniors, victims, judiciary, and law 
     enforcement representatives; assure reasonable consistency 
     with other relevant directives and guidelines; account for 
     circumstances which may justify exceptions, including any 
     circumstances already warranting sentencing enhancements; 
     make any necessary conforming changes; and assure that the 
     guidelines adequately meet the purposes of sentencing.
       (c) REPORT. The sentencing commission shall report the 
     results of the review required under (a) and include any 
     recommendations for retention or modification of the current 
     penalty levels by December 31, 2000.
       SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORT ON HEALTH CARE FRAUD SENTENCES.
       (a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. 
     The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to review and, if 
     appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines applicable to 
     health care fraud offenses.
       (b) REQUIREMENTS. During its review, the Sentencing 
     Commission shall: ensure that the guidelines reflect the 
     serious harms associated with health care fraud and the need 
     for law enforcement to prevent such fraud; consider enhanced 
     penalties for persons convicted of health care fraud; consult 
     with representatives of industry, judiciary, law enforcement, 
     and victim groups; account for mitigating circumstances; 
     assure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives 
     and guidelines; make any necessary conforming changes; and 
     assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of 
     sentencing.
       (c) REPORT. The Sentencing Commission shall report the 
     results of the review required under (a) and include any 
     recommendations for retention or modification of the current 
     penalty levels for health care fraud offenses, by December 
     31, 2000.
       SEC. 203. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR FRAUD RESULTING IN 
     SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.
       This section increases the penalties under the mail fraud 
     statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1341, and the wire fraud statute, 18 
     U.S.C. Sec.  1343, for fraudulent schemes that result in 
     serious injury or death. Existing law provides such an 
     enhancement for a narrow class of health care fraud schemes 
     (see 18 U.S.C. 1347). This provision would extend this 
     penalty enhancement to other forms of fraud under the mail 
     and wire fraud statutes that result in death or serious 
     injury. The maximum penalty if serious bodily harm occurred 
     would be up to twenty years; if a death occurred, the maximum 
     penalty would be a life sentence.
       SEC. 204. SAFEGUARDING PENSION PLANS FROM FRAUD AND THEFT.
       (a) IN GENERAL. This section would add new section 1348 to 
     title 18, United States Code.
       Sec. 1348: Fraud in Relation to Retirement Arrangements:
       (a) This section defines retirement arrangements and 
     provides an exception for plans established by the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
       (b) This section punishes, with up to ten years' 
     imprisonment, the act of defrauding retirement arrangements, 
     or obtaining by means of false or fraudulent pretenses 
     money or property of any retirement arrangement. 
     Retirement arrangements would include employee pension 
     benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act (ERISA), qualified retirement plans under 
     section 4974(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 
     medical savings accounts under section 220 of the IRC, and 
     funds established within the Thrift Savings Fund. This 
     provision is modeled on existing statutes punishing bank 
     fraud (see 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1344) and health care fraud 
     (see 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1347). Any government plan defined 
     under section 3(32) of title I of the ERISA, except funds 
     established by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 
     Board, is exempt from this section.
       (c) The Attorney General is given authority to investigate 
     offenses under the new section, but this authority expressly 
     does not preclude other appropriate Federal agencies, 
     including the Secretary of Labor, from investigating 
     violations of ERISA.
       (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. The table of sections for chapter 
     63 of title 18 United States Code, is modified to list new 
     section ``1348. Fraud in relation to retirement 
     arrangements.''
       SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTIES FOR DEFRAUDING PENSION 
     PLANS.
       (a) IN GENERAL. This section would authorize the Attorney 
     General to bring a civil action for a violation, or 
     conspiracy to violate, new section 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1348, 
     relating to retirement fraud. Proof of such a violation 
     established by a preponderance of the evidence would subject 
     the violator to a civil penalty of the greater of the amount 
     of pecuniary gain to the offender, the pecuniary loss to the 
     victim, or up to $50,000 in the case of an individual, or 
     $100,000 for an organization. Imposition of this civil 
     penalty has no effect on other possible remedies.
       (b) EXCEPTION. No civil penalties would be imposed for 
     conduct involving an employee pension plan subject to 
     penalties under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec.  1132.
       (c) DETERMINATION OF PENALTY AMOUNT. In determining the 
     amount of the penalty, the court is authorized to consider 
     the effect of the penalty on the violator's ability to 
     restore all losses to the victims and to pay other important 
     tax or criminal penalties.
       SEC. 206. PUNISHING BRIBERY AND GRAFT IN CONNECTION WITH 
     EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS.
       This section would amend section 1954 of title 18, United 
     States Code, by changing the title to ``Bribery and graft in 
     connection with employee benefit plans,'' and increasing the 
     maximum penalty for bribery and graft in regard to the 
     operation of an employee benefit plan from 3 to 5 years 
     imprisonment. This section also broadens existing law under 
     section 1954 to cover corrupt attempts to give or accept 
     bribery or graft payments, and to proscribe bribery or graft 
     payments to persons exercising de facto influence or control 
     over employee benefit plans. Finally, this amendment 
     clarifies that a violation

[[Page S3498]]

     under section 1954 requires a showing of corrupt intent to 
     influence the actions of the recipient of the bribe or graft.


               TITLE III--PREVENTING TELEMARKETING CRIME.

       SEC. 301. CENTRALIZED COMPLAINT AND CONSUMER EDUCATION 
     SERVICE FOR VICTIMS OF TELEMARKETING FRAUD.
       (a) CENTRALIZED SERVICE. This section directs the 
     Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a 
     ``Better Business''-style hotline to serve as a central 
     information clearinghouse for victims of telemarketing fraud 
     within one year. As part of this service, the FTC is required 
     to establish procedures for logging in complaints of 
     telemarketing fraud victims, providing information on 
     telemarketing fraud schemes, referring complaints to 
     appropriate law enforcement officials, and providing 
     complaint or prior conviction information about specific 
     companies.
       (b) CREATION OF FRAUD CONVICTION DATABASE. The Attorney 
     General is directed to establish a database of telemarketing 
     fraud convictions secured against corporations or companies, 
     for the use as described in (a).
       (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Authorization is 
     provided for such sums as are necessary to carry out the 
     section.
       SEC. 302. BLOCKING OF TELEMARKETING SCAMS.
       (a) EXPANSION OF SCOPE OF TELEMARKETING FRAUD SUBJECT TO 
     ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES. Section 2325 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by replacing the term ``telephone 
     calls'' with ``wire communication utilizing a telephone 
     service'' to clarify that telemarketing fraud schemes 
     executed using cellular telephone services are subject to the 
     enhanced penalties for such fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2326.
       (b) BLOCKING OR TERMINATION OF TELEPHONE SERVICE ASSOCIATED 
     WITH TELEMARKETING FRAUD. This section adds new section 2328 
     to title 18, United States Code, to authorize the termination 
     of telephone service used to carry on telemarketing fraud, 
     and is similar to the legal authority provided under 18 
     U.S.C. Sec.  1084(d), regarding termination of telephone 
     service used to engage in illegal gambling. The new section 
     2328 requires telephone companies, upon notification in 
     writing from the Department of Justice that a particular 
     phone number is being used to engage in fraudulent 
     telemarketing or other fraudulent conduct, and after notice 
     to the customer, to terminate the subscriber's telephone 
     service. The common carrier is exempt from civil and criminal 
     penalties for any actions taken in compliance with any notice 
     received from the Justice Department under this section. 
     Persons affected by termination may seek an appropriate 
     determination in Federal court that the service should not be 
     discontinued or removed, and the court may direct the 
     Department of Justice to present evidence supporting the 
     notification of termination. Definitions are provided for 
     ``wire communication facility'' and ``reasonable notice to 
     the subscriber.''

                TITLE IV--PREVENTING HEALTH CARE FRAUD.

       SEC. 401. INJUNCTIVE AUTHORITY RELATING TO FALSE CLAIMS AND 
     ILLEGAL KICKBACK SCHEMES INVOLVING FEDERAL HEALTH CARE 
     PROGRAMS.
       (a) IN GENERAL. This section extends the provisions of 18 
     U.S.C. Sec.  1345, which authorizes injunctions against 
     frauds, to authorize the Attorney General to take immediate 
     action to halt illegal health care fraud kickback schemes 
     under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.  1320a-7b). 
     Under existing law, (18 U.S.C. Sec.  1345 (a)(1)(C)), Federal 
     prosecutors are able to obtain injunctive relief in 
     connection with a wide variety of Federal health care 
     offenses. This authority has proven to be extremely valuable 
     in putting a halt to fraudulent behavior, but such relief is 
     not available in connection with kickback offenses under 
     section 1128B of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1320a-7b). Because of the large amounts of money 
     involved in these kinds of cases, the Attorney General should 
     have the authority to enjoin kickback schemes while they are 
     in progress.
       (b) CIVIL ACTIONS. This section would amend 42 U.S.C. Sec.  
     1320a-7b by adding a new subsection (g) authorizing the 
     Attorney General to seek a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per 
     violation, or three times the remuneration, whichever is 
     greater, for each offense under this section with respect to 
     a Federal health care program. This penalty is in addition to 
     other criminal and civil penalties. The procedures are 
     governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 31 
     U.S.C. 3731. If one or more of the purposes of the 
     remuneration is unlawful, a violation exists and damages 
     shall be the full amount of the remuneration.
       SEC. 402. AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND PROCEDURES.
       This section would amend section 3486 of title 18, United 
     States Code, to authorize the Attorney General or her 
     designee to issue administrative subpoenas--called 
     ``authorized investigative demands''--to investigate civil 
     health care fraud cases. Under section 248 of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 
     104-191), the Attorney General or her designee is authorized 
     to issue an administrative subpoena in connection with an 
     investigation relating to a Federal health care offense, 
     defined under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  24 to include only criminal 
     offenses. In civil cases, however, the Department's attorneys 
     must rely upon subpoenas issued by the office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services or upon civil investigative demands. To facilitate 
     the Department of Justice's ability to investigate civil 
     health care fraud cases in an effective and efficient manner, 
     this provision allows the Attorney General or her designee to 
     issue an administrative subpoena in connection with any 
     health care fraud case, criminal or civil.
       This section also provides privacy safeguards for 
     personally identifiable health information that may be 
     obtained in response to an administrative subpoena and 
     divulged in the course of a federal investigation. 
     Information provided in response to a grand jury subpoena is 
     generally required, under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure, to be kept secret. By contrast, this 
     secrecy rule would not apply to information obtained in 
     response to an administrative subpoena. This section 
     therefore protects the privacy and confidentiality of 
     personally identifiable health information by limiting its 
     disclosure to a federal prosecutor in the performance of 
     official duties, to other government personnel where 
     necessary to assist in the enforcement of Federal criminal 
     law, or when directed by a court. The section requires that 
     such information be destroyed within 90 days from production, 
     unless otherwise ordered by a court. ``Personally 
     identifiable health information'' is defined to mean any 
     information relating to the physical or mental condition of 
     an individual, the provision of, or payments for, health 
     care, that either identifies an individual or with respect to 
     which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the 
     information can be used to identify an individual.
       SEC. 403. EXTENDING ANTI-FRAUD SAFEGUARDS TO THE FEDERAL 
     EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.
       This section removes the anti-fraud exemption for the 
     Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Act currently 
     contained in section 1128B(f)(1) of the Social Security Act, 
     thereby extending anti-fraud and anti-kickback safeguards 
     applicable to the Medicare and Medicaid program to the FEHB. 
     This would allow the Attorney General to use the same civil 
     enforcement tools to fight fraud perpetrated against the FEHB 
     program as are available to other Federal health care 
     programs, and to recover civil penalties against persons or 
     entities engaged in illegal kickback schemes under the anti-
     kickback provisions of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1320a-7b). Removal of this exemption would allow 
     enhanced penalties for repeat offenders, additional anti-
     kickback enforcement, enhanced civil monetary penalties, and 
     full participation in the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control 
     Account. Civil penalties are particularly important in health 
     care fraud, since the complex business arrangements often 
     employed in connection with kickback schemes pose 
     difficulties in proving the necessary scienter needed to 
     sustain a criminal prosecution.
       SEC. 404. GRAND JURY DISCLOSURE.
       This section would amend section 3322 of title 18, United 
     States Code, to authorize federal prosecutors to seek a court 
     order to share grand jury information regarding health care 
     offenses, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec.  24, with other 
     federal prosecutors for use in civil proceedings or 
     investigations relating to fraud or false claims in 
     connection with any Federal health care program. Under 
     current law, grand jury information may not be shared for use 
     by government attorneys in civil investigations except ``when 
     so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with 
     a judicial proceeding,'' and may require a hearing at which 
     ``other persons as the court may direct'' are given a 
     ``reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.'' F.R.Cr.P. 
     6(e)(3)(C)( i) & (D). The important policy reasons for 
     protecting the secrecy of grand juries and allowing only 
     narrow access to grand jury proceedings by Federal civil 
     prosecutors are fully set forth in United States v. Sells 
     Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983).
       Mindful of the reasons for grand jury secrecy, the proposed 
     amendment would permit grand jury information regarding 
     health care offenses to be shared with Federal civil 
     prosecutors, only after ex parte court review and a finding 
     that the information would assist in enforcement of federal 
     laws or regulations. Simplifying the sharing of grand jury 
     information by avoiding the need for a judicial proceeding or 
     the possibility of a hearing, would avoid subverting the 
     grand jury secrecy rule while enhancing the effectiveness 
     of the Department of Justice's overall health care anti-
     fraud effort. In particular, by facilitating the sharing 
     of information between criminal investigators and civil 
     prosecutors, this proposal would enable the Justice 
     Department to proceed more quickly and efficiently to 
     recover losses to federal health care programs and to 
     prevent wrongdoers from dissipating illegally obtained 
     assets before the Government can take action to recover 
     the government's losses. Privacy safeguards for personally 
     identifiable health care information proposed in section 
     401 of this Act would also apply to information shared 
     under this new provision.
       SEC 405. INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CIVIL 
     INVESTIGATIVE DEMANDS IN A FALSE CLAIMS INVESTIGATION.
       This section amends section 3733 of title 31, United States 
     Code, to permit the Attorney General to delegate authority to 
     issue civil

[[Page S3499]]

     investigative demands to the Deputy Attorney General or an 
     Assistant Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General and 
     Assistant Attorneys General already are authorized under 
     current law to cause such discovery demands to be served.
       In addition, section 3733 is amended to permit a person who 
     initiated an investigation or proceeding under 31 U.S.C. 
     Sec.  3730, or such person's counsel (i.e., whistle-blowers 
     who have brought a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act) 
     to seek permission from a district court to obtain 
     information disclosed to the Justice Department in response 
     to civil investigative demands. Whistle blowers who relay 
     information for false claims actions to the government are 
     often able to provide valuable assistance to the government 
     in pursuing false claims law investigations and actions. This 
     assistance may be further enhanced if they have an 
     opportunity to review information obtained by the Justice 
     Department in connection with the investigation.


             TITLE V--PROTECTING RESIDENTS OF NURSING HOMES

       SEC. 501. NURSING HOME RESIDENT PROTECTION ACT.
       This title may be cited as the ``Nursing Home Resident 
     Protection Act of 1999.''
       SEC. 502. NURSING HOME RESIDENT PROTECTION.
       (a) PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN NURSING HOMES AND OTHER 
     RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES. This section would add 
     new section 1349 to title 18, United States Code, to punish 
     persons who engage in a pattern of willful violations of 
     Federal laws, regulations, rules, or State laws governing the 
     health, safety, or care of individuals residing in 
     residential health care facilities, and allows the Attorney 
     General to bring civil penalties against those entities. It 
     also provides additional ``whistle blower'' protection by 
     allowing a person who is retaliated against for reporting 
     nursing home conditions to bring a civil action for damages, 
     attorney's fees, and other costs.
       (b) AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND PROCEDURES. This 
     section would amend section 3486(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, to authorize the Attorney General or a 
     designated representative to issue administrative subpoenas 
     in cases under new section 1349 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. The table of sections for chapter 
     63 of title 18 United States Code, is modified to list new 
     section ``1349. Pattern of violations resulting in harm to 
     residents of nursing homes and related facilities.''


        TITLE VI--PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF ELDERLY CRIME VICTIMS

       SEC. 601. USE OF FORFEITED FUNDS TO PAY RESTITUTION TO 
     CRIME VICTIMS AND REGULATORY AGENCIES. This section would 
     amend section 981(e) of title 18, United States Code, to 
     allow the use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime 
     victims and regulatory agencies.
       SEC. 602. VICTIM RESTITUTION. The section adds a new 
     subsection ``(r) VICTIM RESTITUTION'' to the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 853) to allow the government 
     to move to dismiss forfeiture proceedings to allow the 
     defendant to use the property subject to forfeiture for the 
     payment of restitution to victims. If forfeiture proceedings 
     are complete and there is no other source of restitution 
     available to the victims, the Government may return the 
     forfeited property so it may be used for restitution.
       SEC. 603. BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NOT USED TO SHIELD ILLEGAL 
     GAINS FROM FALSE CLAIMS.
       (a) CERTAIN ACTIONS NOT STAYED BY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 
     This section provides that an action under the False Claims 
     Act may be brought and continued despite concurrent 
     bankruptcy proceedings.
       (b) CERTAIN DEBTS NOT DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY. This 
     section prohibits the discharge in bankruptcy of debts 
     resulting from judgments or settlements in Medicare and 
     Medicaid fraud cases under the False Claims Act. Currently, 
     in some cases, persons who rip off the Medicare or Medicaid 
     system can avoid repaying their ill-gotten gains or penalties 
     by filing for bankruptcy.
       (c) REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN DEBTS CONSIDERED FINAL. This 
     section adds a new Sec. 111 to chapter I of title II of the 
     United States Code which provides that no debt owed for a 
     violation of the False Claims act or under a compromise order 
     or other agreement resolving such a debt may be avoided under 
     bankruptcy provisions.
       SEC. 604. FORFEITURE FOR RETIREMENT OFFENSES.
       (a) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE. This section adds a new subsection 
     to 18 U.S.C. Sec.  982(a) to require the forfeiture of 
     proceeds of a criminal retirement offense, including a 
     violation of new section 1348 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (b) CIVIL FORFEITURE. This section adds a new subsection to 
     18 U.S.C. Sec.  981(a)(1) to permit the civil forfeiture of 
     proceeds from a criminal retirement offense.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Leahy and 
Torricelli in introducing The Seniors Safety Act. All too often, 
seniors are primary targets for financial exploitation and subjected to 
neglect and physical abuse, and as our country's senior population 
continues to grow, the plague of crimes against the elderly has the 
potential to spiral out of control. The Seniors Safety Act combats this 
very serious issue by increasing penalties for crimes against seniors, 
improving law enforcement tools necessary to prevent telemarketing and 
healthcare fraud, safeguarding pension and benefit plans from fraud and 
bribery, and preventing nursing home abuse.
  Seniors are often targeted by criminals because of their lack of 
mobility, isolation, and dependence on others. The criminals targeting 
seniors should be subject to enhanced penalties, and we must develop 
new strategies to combat their crimes. The Seniors Safety Act requires 
the sentencing commission to review and consider amending sentencing 
guidelines to include age as one criterion for enhancing a sentence and 
enhances the penalty for fraudulent schemes that result in serious 
injury or death. In addition, the bill directs the Attorney General to 
conduct a comprehensive review of crimes against seniors in order to 
develop new ways to combat criminals who target older Americans.
  Federal investigators estimate that senior citizens constitute nearly 
80 percent of telemarketing scam victims. In 1996, the AARP estimated 
that 14,000 companies nationwide were illegally defrauding citizens of 
their hard-earned money through telemarketing schemes. The fraud 
committed by only 300 telemarketers exposed by the FBI in 1995 resulted 
in an estimated $58 million loss from 52,000 seniors in just two years. 
The Seniors Safety Act puts in place important law enforcement tools 
needed to stop telemarketing fraud. The Act gives federal officials the 
ability to cut off a fraudulent telemarketer's telephone service. It 
also creates a hotline for victims of telemarketing fraud. Through the 
hotline, victims can register complaints against companies, can receive 
information regarding common fraudulent schemes and be referred to the 
appropriate enforcement agency. A database of complaints will be 
established so that victims can check for previous complaints against a 
particular company.
  Health care fraud also disproportionately harms older Americans. The 
Seniors Safety Act provides important new tools to law enforcement 
officials for use in health care fraud investigations. The bill 
authorizes the Attorney General to get injunctions to stop false claims 
and health care kickbacks and to issue administrative subpoenas for 
health care offenses. With court permission, the Attorney General would 
also be permitted to share grand jury information for use in civil 
investigations of health care fraud and abuse. In addition, the bill 
extends existing anti-fraud safeguards applicable to Medicare and 
Medicaid to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act.
  We must protect the economic security of our country's senior 
citizens by safeguarding pension and employee benefit plans from fraud 
and misuse. For this reason, an important provision of the Seniors 
Safety Act creates a new ``retirement fraud'' crime modeled on existing 
bank fraud and health care fraud statutes. The bill provides for civil 
penalties for commission of a retirement fraud crime, and increases the 
existing penalties for theft or embezzlement and bribery and graft with 
respect to the operation of an employee benefit plan.
  In 1997, the Department of Health and Human Services reported a 14 
percent increase in nursing home abuse since 1994. Our society must 
provide a safe environment for older Americans who move into nursing 
homes. This bill will combat nursing home fraud and abuse by creating 
new federal and criminal penalties against persons or companies who 
willfully engage in a pattern of health and safety violations. The bill 
will also protect persons who report health and safety violations by 
allowing them to bring a civil cause of action for acts of retaliation 
against them.
  Finally, we must provide greater protections for senior crime 
victims. The Seniors Safety Act will do just that by requiring 
criminals to forfeit ill-gotten gains and property acquired by 
defrauding pension plans to the victims. The bill also prevents 
criminals from using the bankruptcy laws to avoid paying judgments by 
prohibiting judgments or settlements in Medicare or Medicaid fraud 
cases from being discharged in bankruptcy proceedings and

[[Page S3500]]

allows False Claims Act actions to proceed despite concurrent 
bankruptcy proceedings.
  These and other provisions in The Seniors Safety Act will make a real 
difference--a positive difference--in protecting the senior citizens of 
this country. This comprehensive bill is a vital part of our ongoing 
effort to secure the safety of our families and our communities, and I 
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their 
full support.
 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Leahy, Senator 
Daschle, and I introduced the Seniors Safety Act of 1999. Senator Leahy 
has referred to this legislation as ``a new safety net for seniors.'' 
It is that, but it is also much more. Indeed, this bill is a potent 
weapon designed to track down and punish those criminals who would prey 
on the trust and good will of America's seniors. This bill puts the 
crooks on notice that crimes against seniors, from violent assaults in 
the streets, to abuses in nursing homes, to frauds perpetrated over the 
telephone lines, will not be tolerated.
  Seniors represent the most rapidly growing sector of our population--
in the next 50 years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will 
more than double. Unless we take action now, the frequency and 
sophistication of crimes against seniors will likewise skyrocket. The 
Seniors Safety Act of 1999 was developed to address, head-on the crimes 
which most directly affect the senior community, including 
telemarketing fraud, and abuse and fraud in the health care and nursing 
home industries. It increases penalties and provides enhancements to 
the sentencing guidelines for criminals who target seniors. It protects 
seniors against the illegal depletion of precious pension and employee 
benefit plan funds through fraud, graft, bribery, and helps victimized 
seniors obtain restitution. Any finally, this bill authorizes the 
Attorney General to study the problem of crime against senors, and 
design new techniques to fight it.
  Criminal enterprises that engage in telemarketing fraud are some of 
the most insidious predators out there. Americans are fleeced out of 
over $40 billion dollars every year, and the effect on seniors is 
grossly disproportionate According to the American Association of 
Retired Persons, ``The repeated victimization of the elderly is the 
cornerstone of illegal telemarketing.'' A study has found that 56 
percent of the names on the target lists of fraudulent telemarketers 
are the names of Americans aged 50 or older. Of added concern is the 
fact that many of the perpetrators have migrated out of the United 
States for fear of prosecution, and continue to conduct their illegal 
activities from abroad.
  In one heartbreaking story, a recently-widowed New Jersey woman was 
bilked out of $200,000 by a deceitful telemarketing firm from Canada, 
who claimed that the woman had won a $150,000 sweepsteaks--the price 
could be hers, for a fee. A series of these calls followed, convincing 
this poor woman, already in a fragile mind-state after her husband's 
death, to send more and more money for what they claimed was an 
increasingly large prize, which, of course, never materialized.
  Our bill authorizes the Attorney General to effectively put these 
vultures, even the international criminals, out of business by blocking 
or terminating their U.S. telephone service. In addition, it authorizes 
the FTC to create a consumer clearinghouse which would provide seniors, 
and others who might have questions about the legitimacy of a telephone 
sales pitch, with information regarding prior complaints about a 
particular telemarketing company or prior fraud convictions. 
Furthermore, this clearing house would give seniors who may have been 
cheated an open channel to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

  In 1997, older Americans were victimized by violent crime over 
680,000 times. The crimes against them range from simple assault, to 
armed robbery, to rape. While national crime rates in general are 
falling, seniors have not shared in the benefits of that drop.
  This Act singles out criminals who prey on the senior population and 
penalizes them for the physical and economic harm they cause. In 
addition, we intend to place this growing problem in the spotlight, an 
urge Congress and federal and state law enforcement agencies to 
continue to develop solutions. To this end, we have authorized a 
comprehensive examination of crimes against seniors, and the inclusion 
of data on seniors in the National Crime Victims Survey.
  Seniors across the country have worked their entire lives, secure in 
the belief that their pensions and health benefits would be there to 
provide for them in their retirement years. Far too often, seniors wake 
up one morning to find that their hard-earned benefits have been 
stolen. In 1997 alone, $90 million in losses to pension funds were 
uncovered. Older Americans who depend on that money to live are left 
out in the cold, while criminals enjoy the fruit of a lifetime of our 
seniors' labor. The Seniors Safety Act gives federal prosecutors 
another powerful weapon to punish pension fund thieves. The Act creates 
new civil and criminal penalties for defrauding pension of benefit 
plans, or obtaining money from them under false or fraudulent 
pretenses.
  The defrauding of Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers has 
become big business for criminals who prey on the elderly. According to 
a National Institutes of Health study, losses from fraud and abuse may 
exceed $100 billion per year. Overbilling and false claims filing have 
become rampant as automated claims processing is more prevalent. 
Similarly, the Department of Justice has noted numerous cases where 
unscrupulous nursing home operators have simply pocketed Medicare 
funds, rather than providing adequate care for their residents. In one 
horrendous case, five diabetic patients died from malnutrition and lack 
of medical care. In another, a patient was burned to death when a mute 
patient was placed by untrained staff in a tub of scalding water. These 
terrible abuses would never have occurred had the facilities spent the 
federal funds they received to implement proper health and safety 
procedures. This bill goes after fraud and abuse by providing resources 
and tools for authorities to investigate and prosecute offenses in 
civil and criminal courts, and enhances the ability of the Justice 
Department to use evidence brought in by qui tam (whistleblower) 
plaintiffs.
  This Act delivers needed protections to our seniors. It sends a 
message to the cowardly perpetrators of fraud and other crimes against 
older Americans, that their actions will be fiercely prosecuted, 
whether they be here or abroad. And it clearly states that we refuse to 
allow seniors to be victimized by this most heinous form of predation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 752. a bill to facilitate the recruitment of temporary employees 
to assist in the conduct of the 2000 decennial census of population, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Affairs.


  Legislation to Increase the Number of Low Income Census Enumerators

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with 
my colleague, Senator Bingaman, a bill that will encourage people 
receiving public assistance to seek work next year as enumerators for 
the 2000 census. In the previous census over 350,000 people went from 
door to door seeking information about those who did not return the 
census forms they received in the mail. In spite of the best efforts of 
this army of enumerators, some eight million people were not counted, 
and a disproportionate number of them were minorities.
  The Bureau of the Census is going to great lengths to improve on the 
1990 count, but finding the tens of millions of people who do not 
return their forms is an enormous undertaking. We know that many of 
those who must be sought out live in the low income areas of our 
cities, and many others are among the rural poor. This bill would allow 
those receiving financial assistance under any federal program, TANF 
and others, to be employed as enumerators during calendar year 2000 
without having their income count against their eligibility for 
benefits from those programs. The bill further allows these enumerators 
to have their employment count towards eligibility for Social Security, 
Medicare, and other benefit programs.
  Mr. President, encouraging those who live in the low income areas of 
our population to serve as enumerators will help to open the doors of 
their neighbors and those who live nearby. It

[[Page S3501]]

will help count more of those most difficult to count. And it will 
provide employment to those who may not be able to find it for various 
reasons that include lack of transportation to far-off jobs.
  This bill will help produce a more accurate census and provide 
employment to those most in need of it. It is a most worthwhile piece 
of legislation and I encourage my colleagues to support it. I also ask 
that the text of the bill be included in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 752

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Decennial Census Improvement 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Constitution of the United States requires that the 
     number of persons in the United States be enumerated every 10 
     years in order to permit the apportionment of representatives 
     among the several States;
       (2) information collected through a decennial census of the 
     population conducted under section 141 of title 13, United 
     States Code, is also used to determine--
       (A) the boundaries of--
       (i) congressional districts within States;
       (ii)(I) the districts for the legislature of each State; 
     and
       (II) other political subdivisions within the States; and
       (B) the allocation of billions of dollars of Federal and 
     State funds;
       (3) the Constitution of the United States requires that the 
     enumerations referred to in paragraph (2) be made in such 
     manner as the Congress ``shall by law direct'';
       (4) in the 1990 decennial census, the Bureau of the Census 
     used a combination of mail questionnaires and personal 
     interviews, involving more than 350,000 enumerators, to 
     collect the census data; and
       (5) in 1993, the Bureau of the Census concluded that 
     legislation ensuring that pay for temporary census 
     enumerators in the 2000 decennial census would not be used to 
     reduce benefits under Federal assistance programs would make 
     it easier for the Bureau to hire individuals in low-income 
     neighborhoods as temporary census enumerators in those 
     neighborhoods.

     SEC. 3. MEASURES TO FACILITATE THE RECRUITMENT OF TEMPORARY 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Purposes for Which Compensation Shall Not Be Taken Into 
     Account.--
       (1) In general.--Section 23 of title 13, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) As used in this subsection, the term `temporary 
     census position' means a temporary position within the Bureau 
     of the Census established for purposes relating to the 2000 
     decennial census of population conducted under section 141 
     (as determined under regulations that the Secretary shall 
     prescribe).
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     compensation for service performed by an individual in a 
     temporary census position shall not cause--
       ``(A) that individual or any other individual to become 
     ineligible for any benefits described in paragraph (3)(A); or
       ``(B) a reduction in the amount of any benefits described 
     in paragraph (3)(A) for which that individual or any other 
     individual would otherwise be eligible.
       ``(3) This subsection shall--
       ``(A) apply with respect to benefits provided under any 
     Federal program or any State or local program financed in 
     whole or in part with Federal funds (including the Social 
     Security program under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.) and the Medicare program under title XVIII of that 
     Act);
       ``(B) apply only with respect to compensation for service 
     performed during calendar year 2000; and
       ``(C) not apply if the individual performing the service 
     involved is appointed (or first appointed to any other 
     temporary census position) before January 1, 2000.''.
       (2) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not affect the application of Public Law 101-86 (13 
     U.S.C. 23 note), as amended by subsection (b).
       (b) Exemption From Provisions Relating to Reemployed 
     Annuitants and Former Members of the Uniformed Services.--
     Public Law 101-86 (13 U.S.C. 23 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking the title and inserting the following: ``An 
     Act to provide that a Federal annuitant or former member of a 
     uniformed service who returns to Government service, under a 
     temporary appointment, to assist in carrying out the 2000 
     decennial census of population shall be exempt from certain 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     offsets from pay and other benefits.'';
       (2) in section 1(b), by striking ``the 1990 decennial 
     census'' and inserting ``the 2000 decennial census''; and
       (3) in section 4, by striking ``December 31, 1990.'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2000.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Bryan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bayh, and 
        Mr. Edwards):
  S. 753. A bill to enhance competition in the financial services 
industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of 
banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers; and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


                   The Financial Services Act of 1999

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, with the distinguished Ranking 
Member of the Banking Committee, the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Sarbanes, we are introducing the ``Financial Services Act of 1999.'' We 
are joined by all Democratic members of the Banking Committee.
  The President has indicated through his Secretary of the Treasury, 
Robert Rubin, that he can support our approach and sign it into law.
  This bill makes a clear and unambiguous statement: we want financial 
services modernization enacted this year.
  This should not be a partisan issue. Our bill is based on last year's 
H.R. 10, which enjoyed wide bipartisan support. It was approved last 
year by the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 16 to 2. Most 
Republicans supported it. It was supported by virtually every major 
financial services industry group.
  A similar bill was adopted by a bipartisan 51 to 8 vote this year in 
the House Banking Committee.
  Sadly, reform efforts suffered a major setback this year in the 
Senate Banking Committee when the majority forced through a bill on a 
party line vote of 11 to 9.
  Mr. President, financial services reform is now on two tracks toward 
reform. There is the veto track, and the Banking Committee bill is on 
it over the Community Reinvestment Act and other concerns.
  There is also the track toward enactment, which this bill and the 
House Banking bill are on.
  But it can't be ``take it or leave it'' on either side. We have 
agreed with the distinguished Majority Leader [Mr. Lott] to discuss 
this issue immediately after recess in an effort to find common ground.
  The choice is clear: it's either partisan brinksmanship--or 
bipartisan accomplishment. We reject the former and stand ready to 
deliver on the latter.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today the Democratic members of the 
Senate Banking Committee--myself, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Johnson, 
Reed, Schumer, Bayh, and Edward--are joining with the Democratic 
Leader, Senator Daschle, in introducing the Financial Services Act of 
1999.
  Senator Daschle and the Democratic members of the Senate Banking 
Committee strongly support financial services modernization 
legislation. Last year, every Democratic member of the Committee voted 
for financial services modernization in the form of H.R. 10, the 
Financial Services Act of 1998. That bill was reported by the Committee 
on a bipartisan vote of 16 to 2. In a Committee markup of financial 
services legislation on March 4 of this year, every Democratic member 
of the Committee voted for financial services modernization in the form 
of a substitute amendment that I offered. The substitute amendment 
contained the text of last year's bill with the addition of a provision 
that would permit banks to conduct expanded financial service 
activities through operating subsidiaries. The substitute amendment was 
defeated on a party line vote of 11 to 9.
  The bill being introduced today consists of the substitute amendment 
that was offered in the Banking Committee markup. We introduce this 
legislation because it meets certain basic goals. These include 
permitting affiliations among firms within the financial services 
industry, preserving the safety and soundness of the financial system, 
protecting consumers, maintaining the separation of banking and 
commerce, and expanding access to credit for all communities in our 
country. Unfortunately, the bill reported out of the Senate Banking 
Committee does not meet these goals and was opposed by every Democratic 
member of the Committee.
  We are disappointed that the Committee Majority has abandoned the 
consensus so carefully developed last year. The broad, bipartisan 
margin of support enjoyed by last year's bill reflected the compromises 
struck during

[[Page S3502]]

the course of its consideration. It was not opposed by a single major 
financial services industry association.
  The legislation being introduced today reflects compromises among 
Committee Members and among industry groups on a wide range of issues, 
including the Community Reinvestment Act, consumer protections, and the 
separation of banking and commerce. The decision by the Committee 
Majority to abandon these compromises has resulted in less than 
unanimous industry support for the Committee-passed bill. In addition, 
civil rights groups, community groups, consumer organizations, and 
local government officials strongly oppose the Committee-passed bill.
  We are disappointed as well that the Committee Majority has refused 
to recognize that enactment of financial services legislation entails 
accommodation of views not only of members of the Congress, but in 
particular the view of the White House and the Treasury Department. On 
March 2, before the Committee's markup, President Clinton wrote:

       This Administration has been a strong proponent of 
     financial legislation that would reduce costs and increase 
     access to financial services for consumers, businesses, and 
     communities . . . I agree that reform of the laws governing 
     our nation's financial services industry would promote the 
     public interest. However, I will veto the Financial Services 
     Modernization Act if it is presented to me in its current 
     form.

  The President warned that the bill ``would undermine the 
effectiveness of the Community Reinvestment Act,'' ``would deny 
financial services firms the freedom to organize themselves in the way 
that best serve their customers,'' ``would . . . provide inadequate 
consumer protections,'' and ``could expand the ability of depository 
institutions and nonfinancial firms to affiliate . . .'' None of these 
concerns was fully addressed by the Committee Majority at markup. 
Unless the concerns of the Administration are addressed, it is clear 
the Committee-passed bill will not be enacted into law.
  We believe the bill we are introducing today is a balanced, prudent 
approach to financial services modernization legislation. It could not 
only be passed by the Congress, but signed into law by the President. 
It is clearly the approach most likely to lead to the enactment of 
financial services modernization legislation in this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S. 754. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 310 New 
Bern Avenue in Raleigh, North Carolina, as the ``Terry Sanford Federal 
Building''; read the first time.


                THE ``TERRY SANFORD COMMEMORATION ACT''

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Terry 
Sanford Commemoration Act of 1999.'' This measure would name the 
federal building in Raleigh, North Carolina after a great man, Terry 
Sanford.
  We lost Terry Sanford almost a year ago. The loss was great. He 
served North Carolina throughout his entire life. He was a Governor, a 
state Senator, a U.S. Senator, and a university president . He was 
trained as a lawyer. He wrote books, served as a paratrooper during 
World Was II, worked as an FBI agent and ran for President of the 
United States--twice.
  Senator Sanford died on April 18, 1998 after a long fight with 
esophageal cancer.
  He was a towering figure, a hero, to many North Carolinians. And we 
miss him.
  There is no doubt that when the history of North Carolina in the 20th 
Century is written, Terry Sanford will occupy many pages. And he will 
be given a great deal of credit for the great strides taken by North 
Carolina. Whatever Terry Sanford touched he made better.
  Senator Sanford's mother was a school teacher. His love of education 
must have started there. When he was governor he did whatever it took 
to increase funding for education. He even talked state legislators 
into voting for a food tax in order to fund education--that was not 
easy. Among other things, he helped found the North Carolina School for 
the Arts which was a pioneer, and to this day remains a leader in arts 
education. After he finished his term as governor, he became President 
of Duke University. And he brought unparalleled ambition, vision and 
energy to making Duke University great.
  But the list of Senator Sanford's accomplishments does not stop with 
education. He launched innovative anti-poverty programs. He helped 
start the North Carolina State Board of Science and Technology. He was 
largely responsible for the creation of an environmental health 
sciences facility in Research Triangle Park. He helped calm the student 
protests over the Vietnam War.
  And finally, in the midst of a turbulent and difficult time, Terry 
helped us find a path across the racial divide. In his 1961 inaugural 
address, he let us know and understand that ``no group of our citizens 
can be denied the right to participate in the opportunities of first-
class citizenship.''
  He later said: ``The most difficult thing I did was the most 
invisible thing. That was to turn the attitude on the race.'' He turned 
the attitude in small and large ways. He invited prominent leaders in 
the African-American community to the Governor's Mansion for breakfast 
to talk about how to solve the race problem. Many of them later said 
that they never dreamed a day would come when their state's governor 
would invite them to breakfast. He started the Good Neighbor Council, 
which is now the North Carolina Human Relations Commission, to give 
structure and authority to his commitment to creating jobs for people 
regardless of race.
  And the thing about Senator Sanford is that he never stopped. Late in 
life, when he was no longer a Senator, University President or 
Governor, he kept coming up with great ideas and kept working to see 
them through to completion. He was a friend to me. And I valued his 
advice and counsel.
  Naming a building can never capture the spirit and heart of a man 
like Terry Sanford. But it is a fitting tribute.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 754

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the `Terry Sanford Commemoration 
     Act of 1999'.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Terry Sanford served the State of North Carolina and 
     the Nation with enthusiasm, bravery, and distinction in many 
     important ways, including--
       (A) as a paratrooper in World War II;
       (B) as an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (C) as a North Carolina State senator;
       (D) as Governor of North Carolina;
       (E) as a professor of public policy at Duke University;
       (F) as President of Duke University;
       (G) as a United States Senator from North Carolina;
       (H) as a patron of the arts; and
       (I) as a loving and committed husband and father.
       (2) Terry Sanford fought tirelessly and selflessly 
     throughout his life to improve the lives of his fellow 
     citizens through public education, racial healing, economic 
     development, eradication of poverty, and promotion of the 
     arts.
       (3) Terry Sanford exemplified the best qualities mankind 
     has to offer.
       (4) Terry Sanford lived an exemplary life and is owed a 
     debt of gratitude for his untiring service to the State of 
     North Carolina and his fellow Americans.

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATION.

       The Federal building located at 310 New Bern Avenue in 
     Raleigh, North Carolina, shall be known and designated as the 
     `Terry Sanford Federal Building'.

     SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, paper, or 
     other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 3 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the `Terry Sanford Federal Building'.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Biden, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Helms, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 755. A bill to extend the period for compliance with certain 
ethical standards for Federal prosecutors; read the first time.


 Legislation to Extend the Period for Compliance with Certain Ethical 
                   Standards for Federal Prosecutors

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a diverse, 
bipartisan group of Senators in introducing

[[Page S3503]]

this simple, technical bill to extend the effective date of a provision 
included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill. My cosponsors 
include Senators Nickles, Biden, Thurmond, Kennedy, Sessions, Abraham, 
Kohl, Schumer, Lieberman, DeWine, and Helms. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support our bill.
  My colleagues will recall that last year's omnibus appropriations 
bill included a provision originating in the House, relating to the 
application of state bar rules to federal prosecutors. The so-called 
McDade amendment proposed the addition of a new section, Section 530B, 
to title 28 of the United States Code, which would effect the ethical 
standards required of federal prosecutors.
  Although I am prepared to, I do not want to address the merits of 
this issue today, and our bill does not do so. Suffice it to say, 
however, that including this provision was so controversial that a 
bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee opposed its inclusion in 
the omnibus bill. In fact, our strong opposition resulted in a six 
month delay in the provision's effective date being included as well.
  When we included this six month grace period, the Senate anticipated 
that the time might be used to address the serious concerns with the 
underlying measure. Due to arguably unanticipated events, we have not 
been able to do so. Our amendment simply maintains the status quo, 
extending the grace period an additional six months. A bipartisan group 
of 12 Senators, including myself and 3 former chairmen of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee signed a letter, urging the distinguished Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee to include this 
amendment in this supplemental appropriations bill.
  This letter was signed by Senators Thurmond, Kennedy, Biden, DeWine, 
Sessions, Abraham, Kyl, Feinstein, Kohl, Nickles, Warner, and myself. I 
ask unanimous consent that the letter appear in the Record following my 
remarks.
  Let me assure my colleagues, our bill will not, as some might 
suggest, result in looser ethical standards for federal prosecutors. 
The same high standards that have always applied will continue in 
force. Indeed, I have considerable sympathy for the values Section 530B 
seeks to protect. Anyone who at one time or another has been the 
subject of unfounded ethical or legal charges knows the frustration of 
clearing one's name. And no one wants more than I to ensure that all 
federal prosecutors are held to the highest ethical standards. As 
Justice Sutherland put it in 1935, the prosecutor's job is not just to 
win a case, but to see ``that justice shall be done. . . . It is as 
much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a 
wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring 
about a just one.'' But Section 530B, as it was enacted last year, is 
not in my view the way to ensure these standards are met.
  Although well-intentioned, section 530B is not the measured and well 
tailored law needed to address the legitimate concerns contemplated by 
Congress, and will have serious unintended consequences. Indeed, if 
allowed to take effect in its present form, section 530B could cripple 
the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce federal law.
  The federal government has a legitimate and important role in the 
investigation and prosecution of complex multi-state terrorism, drug, 
fraud or organized crime conspiracies, in rooting out and punishing 
fraud against federally funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security, in appropriate enforcement of the federal civil rights 
laws, in investigating and prosecuting complex corporate crime, and in 
punishing environmental crime.
  It is in these very cases that current Section 530B, if unchanged, 
will have its most serious adverse effects. Federal prosecutors in 
these cases, which frequently encompass several states, will be subject 
to the differing state and local rules of each of those states. Their 
decisions will be subject to review by the ethics review boards in each 
of these states at the whim of defense counsel, even if the federal 
prosecutor is not licensed in that state.
  At a minimum, the law will discourage the close prosecutorial 
supervision of investigations that ensure that suspect's rights are not 
abridged. More likely, however, in its current form, section 530B will 
hinder the effective investigation and prosecution of violations of 
federal law.
  Several important investigative and prosecutorial practices, 
perfectly legal and acceptable under federal law and in federal court, 
under current section 530B will be subject to state bar rules. For 
instance, in many states, federal attorneys will not be permitted to 
speak with witnesses alleged to be represented, especially witnesses to 
corporate misconduct. The use of undercover investigations or federal-
court authorized wiretaps may be challenged as illegal in those states 
where these practices are barred or curtailed by state law or rule, 
hindering federal criminal investigations. In other states, current 
section 530B might be construed to require--contrary to long-
established federal grand jury practice--that prosecutors present 
exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
  In short, current section 530B will likely affect adversely 
enforcement of our antitrust laws, our environmental laws prohibiting 
the dumping of hazardous waste, our labor laws, our civil rights laws, 
and the integrity of every federal benefits program.
  Despite these potentially severe consequences, this legislation 
received no meaningful consideration in the Senate last Congress. 
Rather, it was included without an opportunity for Senate debate in an 
unamendable omnibus appropriations bill conference report. The first 
Senate consideration of this matter occurred just this week, with a 
hearing in the Judiciary Committee's Criminal Justice Oversight 
Subcommittee. The testimony at that hearing shed important light on 
many of the concerns about section 530B that I have described.
  Yet, our bill does not repeal section 530B, or change one letter of 
it. Our bill simply delays its effective date for six additional 
months, to provide the Senate an appropriate time in which to address 
these matters with our colleagues in the House. We believe that it is 
in the best interest of the Congress, the Department of Justice, and 
our state and federal courts, to resolve concerns over this issue under 
current law, as anticipated by the Congress when it enacted the grace 
period.
  The provisions of the McDade amendment are slated to go into effect 
on April 19, 1999, if no further action is taken. I urge my colleagues 
to support the swift enactment of our legislation, to provide the time 
needed to reach a reasonable resolution to this complex issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Smith of Oregon, Mr. Grams, Mr. Robb, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Lott, 
        Mr. Santorum, Mr. Burns, Mr. Allard, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Bond, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 757. A bill to provide a framework for consideration by the 
legislative and executive branches of unilateral economic sanctions in 
order to ensure coordination of United States policy with respect to 
trade, security, and human rights; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                    The Sanctions Policy Reform Act

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Sanctions 
Policy Reform Act of 1999,'' a bill that would establish a more 
deliberative, commonsense approach to U.S. sanctions policy. I am 
joined by nearly thirty colleagues from both sides of the aisle. A 
companion bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of 
Representatives on March 24, 1999. We introduced a similar sanctions 
reform bill in the 105th Congress and gained thirty-nine co-sponsors in 
the Senate.
  Our interest in reforming U.S. economic sanctions policy stems from a 
number of compelling and disturbing findings. The net effect of our 
self-imposed economic sanctions is that they deny access to U.S. 
markets abroad, reduce our trade balance, contribute to job loss, 
complicate our foreign policy and antagonize friends and allies. 
Unilateral economic sanctions are truly a blunt instrument of foreign 
policy.

[[Page S3504]]

  Unilateral economic sanctions have become a policy of first use, 
rather than last resort, when pursuing a foreign policy objective. 
Sanctions are tempting alternatives to careful diplomatic negotiations 
and to the use of force to accomplish foreign policy goals. Unilateral 
economic sanctions have become more frequent in recent years and have 
been used against more countries, both friends and adversaries, for an 
increasing variety of actions which we find offensive.
  Unilateral economic sanctions can give a competitive edge to foreign 
companies by precluding U.S. companies from exporting. Over time, 
foreign competitors will establish trade connections with a U.S. 
sanctioned country, solidify their trade ties and make it difficult for 
U.S. companies to re-enter those markets. This is costly to the U.S. 
economy, to American exports, to American jobs and to our overall 
foreign policy.
  There have been a large number of studies on unilateral economic 
sanctions and they provide startling estimates of the sanctions' costs. 
The report of the President's Export Council, for example, cited 75 
countries representing more than half of the world's population that 
have been subject to or threatened by U.S. unilateral economic 
sanctions. In another study, the Institute for International Economics 
concluded that, in 1995, alone, economic sanctions cost U.S. exports 
between $15-19 billion, and eliminated upwards to 200,000 U.S. jobs, 
many in high wage export sector. More recently, the administration 
revealed the results of its internal inventory of U.S. sanctions and 
found that there are now more than 280 identifiable sanctions 
provisions that are either in force or in law.
  Unilateral economic sanctions rarely succeed in accomplishing their 
stated foreign policy objectives. Unilateral economic sanctions 
sometimes do more damage to our interests than to those against whom 
they are aimed. For this reason alone, we should re-think the way in 
which we manage our sanctions policy.
  Mr. President, a cardinal principle of foreign policy is that when we 
act internationally, our actions should do less harm to ourselves than 
to others. Unilateral economic sanctions, unfortunately, often fail 
this crucial test of public policy.
  In fact, Mr President, unilateral economic sanctions often impose 
long-term adverse effects on the U.S. economy. Once foreign competitors 
establish a presence in international markets that are abandoned by the 
United States, the potential losses can magnify. Over time, the 
cumulative effect of sanctions will not only include the loss of 
commercial contracts, but also the loss of confidence in American 
suppliers and in the United States as a reliable business partner. The 
frequent resort to unilateral economic sanctions to achieve foreign 
policy goals, however meritorious these goals may be, runs the risk of 
weakening our export performance which has contributed so greatly to 
our economic prosperity.
  Mr. President, unilateral economic sanctions give the illusion of 
action by substituting for more decisive action or by serving as a 
palliative for those who demand that some action be taken--any action--
by the United States against a country with whom we have a 
disagreement. Yet, the evidence is powerful that they rarely attain the 
foreign policy goals they are intended to achieve.
  The bill we are introducing today includes a number of changes from 
last year's bill which we believe will strengthen the cause of 
sanctions reform. These new provisions include language that would 
provide the President more flexibility in meeting procedural 
requirements he would otherwise have to meet when considering new 
unilateral economic sanctions. The bill includes a permanent waiver 
authority on the Nuclear Prevention Proliferation Act of 1994, the so-
called Glenn Amendment, which mandates the automatic imposition of 
sanctions on countries which detonate a nuclear device for weapons 
development. We also included an additional procedural ``speed bump'' 
to improve the deliberative process in the Congress.
  Mr. President, our legislation is prospective. With only one 
exception, our bill does not affect existing U.S. sanctions. The only 
provision in our bill which reaches back to current unilateral economic 
sanctions gives the President permanent authority to waive the 
sanctions in the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, the Glenn 
Amendment. Our bill applies only to unilateral sanctions and to those 
sanctions intended to achieve foreign policy or national security 
objectives. It would exclude, by definition, U.S. trade laws that have 
well-established procedures and precedents. The bill does not address 
the complex issue of state and local sanctions designed to achieve 
foreign policy goals.
  Our proposed legislation does not prohibit unilateral economic 
sanctions or prevent a vote in the Congress on any proposed new 
sanction. There are situations where other foreign policy options have 
been exhausted and where the actions of other countries are so 
outrageous or so threatending to the United States and national 
interests that our response, short of the use of force, must be firm 
and unambiguous. In such instances, economic sanctions may be an 
appropriate instrument of American foreign policy.
  Our legislation seeks to establish clear guidelines and informational 
requirements to help us improve our deliberations and to understand 
better the consequences of our actions before we implement new economic 
sanctions. We should know before voting or imposing any new sanctions 
what the costs and gains to the United States and our friends and 
allies are likely to be. There should be an analysis of the impact of 
any new sanctions on our reputation as a reliable supplier, the other 
policy options that have been explored, and whether the proposed 
sanctions are likely to contribute to the foreign policy objectives 
sought in the legislation. Comparable requirements are also mandated in 
the bill for those new sanctions contemplated by the President under 
his authorities.
  If the Congress and the President decide to implement new sanctions, 
our bill requires periodic evaluations from the President detailing the 
degree to which the sanctions have accomplished U.S. goals, the impact 
they are having on our economic, political and humanitarian interests, 
and their effects on other foreign policy goals and interests.
  The bill provides for more active and timely consultations between 
Congress and the President. It provides Presidential authority to 
permit the President to waive the procedural requirements he must 
otherwise meet if he exercises his current authorities to impose a new 
sanction. The waiver authority can be exercised if the President 
determines that it is in the national interests to do so.
  Our bill includes a sunset provision which means that any new 
unilateral economic sanction must expire after 2 years duration unless 
the Congress or the President acts to re-authorize them. Too often 
sanctions have lingered on the books long after anyone remembers and 
long after they are having any effect.
  It includes language on contract sanctity to help ensure that the 
United States is a reliable supplier, but it also includes appropriate 
exceptions to protect against contracts that might otherwise be illegal 
or contrary to U.S. interests.
  Our bill gives special attention to American agriculture because 
American farmers and ranchers face a disproportionate burden from U.S. 
economic sanctions. Agricultural commodities are our most vulnerable 
exports because they are the most easily replaced by other exporters. 
American exporters lose access to some fourteen percent of the world 
rice market, some ten percent of the world wheat market and some five 
percent of the world corn market due to our sanctions.

  Because of this, we included discretionary authority in the bill to 
provide for compensatory agricultural assistance if agricultural 
markets are severely disrupted by the imposition of unilateral economic 
sanctions. No new appropriations would be required for this authority. 
The bill opposes the use of food and medicines as a tool of foreign 
policy, except in the most severe circumstances, and urges that 
economic sanctions be targeted as narrowly as possible on the targeted 
country in order to minimize harm to innocent people and humanitarian 
activities.
  Let me reiterate that nothing in this bill prohibits new unilateral 
economic

[[Page S3505]]

sanctions or prevents a vote in the Congress on proposed new sanctions. 
The steps detailed in this bill provide for better policy procedures 
and more informed analysis so that proposed new sanctions are preceded 
by a more deliberative process by which the President and the Congress 
can make reasoned and balanced choices affecting the totality of 
American values and interests.
  Mr. President, I feel strongly about this bill and this issue. It 
goes to the heart of the manner by which we conduct our commercial 
relations abroad and the way we manage our overall foreign policy. We 
need to do a better job on both. This legislation is designed to do 
just that.
  I hope my colleagues will join me and the other original co-sponsors 
by taking a close look at this legislation and the reforms that we are 
attempting to accomplish. I welcome their support and believe that if 
we deal with the unilateral economic sanctions issue in a careful and 
systematic manner, we can make a significant positive contribution to 
the conduct of American foreign policy and to our national interest.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be included in 
the Record, along with a section-by-section description of the bill.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 757

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sanctions Policy Reform 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to establish an effective 
     framework for consideration by the legislative and executive 
     branches of unilateral economic sanctions in order to ensure 
     coordination of United States policy with respect to trade, 
     security, and human rights.

     SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to pursue United States interests through vigorous and 
     effective diplomatic, political, commercial, charitable, 
     educational, cultural, and strategic engagement with other 
     countries, while recognizing that the national security 
     interests of the United States may sometimes require the 
     imposition of economic sanctions on other countries;
       (2) to foster multilateral cooperation on vital matters of 
     United States foreign policy, including promoting human 
     rights and democracy, combating international terrorism, 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and 
     international narcotics trafficking, and ensuring adequate 
     environmental protection;
       (3) to promote United States economic growth and job 
     creation by expanding exports of goods, services, and 
     agricultural commodities, and by encouraging investment that 
     supports the sale abroad of products and services of the 
     United States;
       (4) to maintain the reputation of United States businesses 
     and farmers as reliable suppliers to international customers 
     of quality products and services, including United States 
     manufactures, technology products, financial services, and 
     agricultural commodities;
       (5) to avoid the use of restrictions on exports of 
     agricultural commodities as a foreign policy weapon;
       (6) to oppose policies of other countries designed to 
     discourage economic interaction with countries friendly to 
     the United States or with any United States national, and to 
     avoid use of such policies as instruments of United States 
     foreign policy; and
       (7) when economic sanctions are necessary--
       (A) to target them as narrowly as possible on those foreign 
     governments, entities, and officials that are responsible for 
     the conduct being targeted, thereby minimizing unnecessary or 
     disproportionate harm to individuals who are not responsible 
     for such conduct; and
       (B) to the extent feasible, to avoid any adverse impact of 
     economic sanctions on the humanitarian activities of United 
     States and foreign nongovernmental organizations in a country 
     against which sanctions are imposed.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Unilateral economic sanction.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``unilateral economic sanction'' 
     means any prohibition, restriction, or condition on economic 
     activity, including economic assistance, with respect to a 
     foreign country or foreign entity that is imposed by the 
     United States for reasons of foreign policy or national 
     security, including any of the measures described in 
     subparagraph (B), except in a case in which the United States 
     imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime and the 
     other members of that regime have agreed to impose 
     substantially equivalent measures.
       (B) Particular measures.--The measures referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are the following:
       (i) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, exports or imports of any product, technology, or service 
     to or from a foreign country or entity.
       (ii) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, financial transactions with a foreign country or entity.
       (iii) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, direct or indirect investment in or from a foreign 
     country or entity.
       (iv) The imposition of increased tariffs on, or other 
     restrictions on imports of, products of a foreign country or 
     entity, including the denial, revocation, or conditioning of 
     nondiscriminatory (most-favored-nation) trade treatment.
       (v) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on--

       (I) the authority of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States to give approval to the issuance of any guarantee, 
     insurance, or extension of credit in connection with the 
     export of goods or services to a foreign country or entity;
       (II) the authority of the Trade and Development Agency to 
     provide assistance in connection with projects in a foreign 
     country or in which a particular foreign entity participates; 
     or
       (III) the authority of the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation to provide insurance, reinsurance, or financing 
     or conduct other activities in connection with projects in a 
     foreign country or in which a particular foreign entity 
     participates.

       (vi) A requirement that the United States representative to 
     an international financial institution vote against any loan 
     or other utilization of funds to, for, or in a foreign 
     country or particular foreign entity.
       (vii) A measure imposing any restriction or condition on 
     economic activity of any foreign government or entity on the 
     ground that such government or entity does business in or 
     with a foreign country.
       (viii) A measure imposing any restriction or condition on 
     economic activity of any person that is a national of a 
     foreign country, or on any government or other entity of a 
     foreign country, on the ground that the government of that 
     country has not taken measures in cooperation with, or 
     similar to, sanctions imposed by the United States on a third 
     country.
       (ix) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, travel rights or air transportation to or from a foreign 
     country.
       (x) Any restriction on the filing or maintenance in a 
     foreign country of any proprietary interest in intellectual 
     property rights (including patents, copyrights, and 
     trademarks), including payment of patent maintenance fees.
       (C) Multilateral regime.--As used in this paragraph, the 
     term ``multilateral regime'' means an agreement, arrangement, 
     or obligation under which the United States cooperates with 
     other countries in restricting commerce for reasons of 
     foreign policy or national security, including--
       (i) obligations under resolutions of the United Nations;
       (ii) nonproliferation and export control arrangements, such 
     as the Australia Group, the Nuclear Supplier's Group, the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, and the Wassenaar 
     Arrangement;
       (iii) treaty obligations, such as under the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
     Nuclear Weapons, and the Biological Weapons Convention; and
       (iv) agreements concerning protection of the environment, 
     such as the International Convention for the Conservation of 
     Atlantic Tunas, the Declaration of Panama referred to in 
     section 2(a)(1) of the International Dolphin Conservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1361 note), the Convention on International Trade 
     in Endangered Species, the Montreal Protocol on Substances 
     that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the Basel Convention on the 
     Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes.
       (D) Economic assistance.--The term ``economic assistance'' 
     means--
       (i) any assistance under part I or chapter 4 of part II of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including programs under 
     title IV of chapter 2 of part I of that Act, relating to the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation), other than--

       (I) assistance under chapter 8 of part I of that Act,
       (II) disaster relief assistance, including any assistance 
     under chapter 9 of part I of that Act,
       (III) assistance which involves the provision of food 
     (including monetization of food) or medicine, or
       (IV) assistance for refugees; and

       (ii) the provision of agricultural commodities, other than 
     food, under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
     Act of 1954.
       (E) Financial transaction.--As used in this paragraph, the 
     term ``financial transaction'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 1956(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
       (F) Investment.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     ``investment'' means any contribution or commitment of funds, 
     commodities, services, patents, or other forms of 
     intellectual property, processes, or techniques, including--
       (i) a loan or loans;
       (ii) the purchase of a share of ownership;
       (iii) participation in royalties, earnings, or profits; and
       (iv) the furnishing or commodities or services pursuant to 
     a lease or other contract.

[[Page S3506]]

       (G) Exclusions.--The term ``unilateral economic sanction'' 
     does not include--
       (i) any measure imposed to remedy unfair trade practices or 
     to enforce United States rights under a trade agreement, 
     including under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1337), title VII of that Act (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.), 
     title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411 et seq.), 
     sections 1374 and 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 3103 and 3106), and 
     section 3 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10b-1);
       (ii) any measure imposed to remedy market disruption or to 
     respond to injury to a domestic industry for which increased 
     imports are a substantial cause or threat thereof, including 
     remedies under sections 201 and 406 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2251 and 2436), and textile import restrictions 
     (including those imposed under section 204 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1784));
       (iii) any action taken under title IV of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), including the enactment of a 
     joint resolution under section 402(d)(2) of that Act;
       (iv) any measure imposed to restrict imports of 
     agricultural commodities to protect food safety or to ensure 
     the orderly marketing of commodities in the United States, 
     including actions taken under section 22 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 624);
       (v) any measure imposed to restrict imports of any other 
     products in order to protect domestic health or safety;
       (vi) any measure authorized by, or imposed under, a 
     multilateral or bilateral trade agreement to which the United 
     States is a signatory, including the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 
     United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement, and the United 
     States-Canada Free Trade Agreement; and
       (vii) any prohibition or restriction on the sale, export, 
     lease, or other transfer of any defense article, defense 
     service, or design and construction service under the Arms 
     Export Control Act, or on any financing provided under that 
     Act.
       (2) National emergency.--The term ``national emergency'' 
     means any unusual or extraordinary threat, which has its 
     source in whole or substantial part outside the United 
     States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy 
     of the United States.
       (3) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given that term in section 102(1) 
     of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602(1)).
       (4) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Agriculture, the Committee on International Relations, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, the 
     Committee on Finance, and the Committee on Foreign Relations 
     of the Senate.
       (5) Contract sanctity.--The term ``contract sanctity'', 
     with respect to a unilateral economic sanction, refers to the 
     inapplicability of the sanction to--
       (A) a contract or agreement entered into before the 
     sanction is imposed, or to a valid export license or other 
     authorization to export; and
       (B) actions taken to enforce the right to maintain 
     intellectual property rights, in the foreign country against 
     which the sanction is imposed, which existed before the 
     imposition of the sanction.
       (6) Unilateral economic sanction legislation.--The term 
     ``unilateral economic sanction legislation'' means a bill or 
     joint resolution that imposes, or authorizes the imposition 
     of, any unilateral economic sanction.

     SEC. 5. GUIDELINES FOR UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS 
                   LEGISLATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that any unilateral economic 
     sanction legislation that is introduced in or reported to a 
     House of Congress on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act should--
       (1) state the foreign policy or national security objective 
     or objectives of the United States that the economic sanction 
     is intended to achieve;
       (2) provide that the economic sanction terminate 2 years 
     after it is imposed, unless specifically reauthorized by 
     Congress;
       (3) provide contract sanctity, except that contract 
     sanctity shall not be required in any case--
       (A) in which execution of the contract is contrary to law;
       (B) in which the contract involves assets that will be 
     frozen as a consequence of the proposed sanction; or
       (C) in which the contract provides for the supply of goods 
     or services directly to a specific person, government agency, 
     or military unit that is expressly named as a target of the 
     proposed sanction;
       (4) provide authority for the President both to adjust the 
     timing and scope of the sanction and to waive the sanction, 
     if the President determines it is in the national interest to 
     do so;
       (5)(A) target the sanction as narrowly as possible on 
     foreign governments, entities, and officials that are 
     responsible for the conduct being targeted;
       (B) not include restrictions on the provision of medicine, 
     medical equipment, or food; and
       (C) seek to minimize any adverse impact on the humanitarian 
     activities of United States and foreign nongovernmental 
     organizations in any country against which the sanction may 
     be imposed;
       (6) provide, to the extent that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture finds, that--
       (A) the proposed sanction is likely to restrict exports of 
     any agricultural commodity or is likely to result in 
     retaliation against exports of any agricultural commodity 
     from the United States; and
       (B) the sanction is proposed to be imposed, or is likely to 
     be imposed, on a country or countries that constituted, in 
     the preceding calendar year, the market for more than 3 
     percent of all export sales from the United States of an 
     agricultural commodity; and
       (7) provide that the Secretary of Agriculture expand 
     agricultural export assistance under United States market 
     development, food assistance, or export promotion programs to 
     offset the likely damage to incomes of producers of the 
     affected agricultural commodity, to the maximum extent 
     permitted by law and by the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement on Agriculture referred to in section 
     101(d)(2) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(d)(2)).

     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Public Comment.--Not later than 15 days prior to the 
     consideration by the committee of primary jurisdiction of any 
     unilateral economic sanction legislation, the chairman of the 
     committee shall cause to be printed in the Congressional 
     Record a notice that provides an opportunity for interested 
     members of the public to submit comments to the committee on 
     the proposed sanction.
       (b) Committee Reports.--In the case of any unilateral 
     economic sanction legislation that is reported by a committee 
     of the House of Representatives or the Senate, the committee 
     report accompanying the legislation shall contain a statement 
     of whether the legislation meets all the guidelines specified 
     in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 5 and, if the 
     legislation does not, an explanation of why it does not. The 
     report shall also include a specific statement of whether the 
     legislation includes any restrictions on the provision of 
     medicine, medical equipment, or food.
       (c) Floor Consideration in the House of Representatives and 
     Senate.--
       (1) Floor consideration in the house of representatives.--A 
     motion in the House of Representatives to proceed to the 
     consideration of any unilateral economic sanctions 
     legislation shall not be in order unless the House has 
     received in advance the appropriate report or reports under 
     subsection (d).
       (2) Consideration in the senate.--A motion in the Senate to 
     proceed to the consideration of any unilateral economic 
     sanctions legislation shall not be in order unless the Senate 
     has received in advance the appropriate report or reports 
     under subsection (d).
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Report by the president.--Not later than 30 days after 
     a committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate 
     reports any unilateral economic sanction legislation or the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate receives such 
     legislation from the other House of Congress, the President 
     shall submit to the House receiving the legislation a report 
     containing--
       (A) an assessment of--
       (i) the likelihood that the proposed unilateral economic 
     sanction will achieve its stated objective within a 
     reasonable period of time; and
       (ii) the impact of the proposed unilateral economic 
     sanction on--

       (I) humanitarian conditions, including the impact on 
     conditions in any specific countries on which the sanction is 
     proposed to be or may be imposed;
       (II) humanitarian activities of United States and foreign 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       (III) relations with United States allies;
       (IV) other United States national security and foreign 
     policy interests; and
       (V) countries and entities other than those on which the 
     sanction is proposed to be or may be imposed;

       (B) a description and assessment of--
       (i) diplomatic and other steps the United States has taken 
     to accomplish the intended objectives of the unilateral 
     sanction legislation;
       (ii) the likelihood of multilateral adoption of comparable 
     measures;
       (iii) comparable measures undertaken by other countries;
       (iv) alternative measures to promote the same objectives, 
     and an assessment of their potential effectiveness;
       (v) any obligations of the United States under 
     international treaties or trade agreements with which the 
     proposed sanction may conflict;
       (vi) the likelihood that the proposed sanction will lead to 
     retaliation against United States interests, including 
     agricultural interests; and
       (vii) whether the achievement of the objectives of the 
     proposed sanction outweighs any likely costs to United States 
     foreign policy, national security, economic, and humanitarian 
     interests, including any potential harm to United States 
     business, agriculture, and consumers, and any potential harm 
     to the international reputation of the United States as a 
     reliable supplier of products, technology, agricultural 
     commodities, and services.
       (2) Report by the secretary of agriculture.--Not later than 
     30 days after a committee of the House of Representatives

[[Page S3507]]

     or the Senate reports any unilateral economic sanction 
     legislation affecting the export of agricultural commodities 
     from the United States or the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate receives such legislation from the other House of 
     Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the 
     House receiving the legislation a report containing an 
     assessment of--
       (A) the extent to which any country or countries proposed 
     to be sanctioned or likely to be sanctioned are markets that 
     accounted for, in the preceding calendar year, more than 3 
     percent of all export sales from the United States of any 
     agricultural commodity;
       (B) the likelihood that exports of agricultural commodities 
     from the United States will be affected by the proposed 
     sanction or by retaliation by any country proposed to be 
     sanctioned or likely to be sanctioned, and specific 
     commodities which are most likely to be affected;
       (C) the likely effect on incomes of producers of the 
     specific commodities identified by the Secretary;
       (D) the extent to which the proposed sanction would permit 
     foreign suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
       (E) the likely effect of the proposed sanction on the 
     reputation of United States farmers as reliable suppliers of 
     agricultural commodities in general, and of the specific 
     commodities identified by the Secretary.
       (3) Report by the congressional budget office.--Any bill or 
     joint resolution that imposes a unilateral economic sanction 
     shall be treated as including a Federal private sector 
     mandate for purposes of part B of title IV of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 658 et seq.) and the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     report accordingly. The report shall include an assessment 
     of--
       (A) the likely short-term and long-term costs of the 
     proposed sanction to the United States economy, including the 
     potential impact on United States trade performance, 
     employment, and growth;
       (B) the impact the proposed sanction will have on the 
     international reputation of the United States as a reliable 
     supplier of products, agricultural commodities, technology, 
     and services; and
       (C) the impact the proposed sanction will have on the 
     economic well-being and international competitive position of 
     United States industries, firms, workers, farmers, and 
     communities.
       (e) Rules of the House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     section is enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     these rules are deemed a part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, and they supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

     SEC. 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION.

       (a) Notice.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Notice of intent to impose sanction.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provisions of law, the President shall publish 
     notice in the Federal Register at least 45 days in advance of 
     the imposition of any new unilateral economic sanction under 
     any provision of law with respect to a foreign country or 
     foreign entity, of the President's intention to implement 
     such sanction. The purpose of such notice shall be to allow 
     the formulation of an effective sanction that advances United 
     States national security and economic interests, and to 
     provide an opportunity for negotiations to achieve the 
     objectives specified in the law authorizing imposition of a 
     unilateral economic sanction.
       (B) Waiver of advance notice requirement.--The President 
     may waive the provisions of subparagraph (A) in the case of 
     any new unilateral economic sanction that involves freezing 
     the assets of a foreign country or entity (or in the case of 
     any other sanction) if the President determines that the 
     national interest would be jeopardized by the requirements of 
     this section.
       (C) Authority to negotiate.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President is authorized to negotiate 
     with the foreign government against which a unilateral 
     economic sanction is proposed to resolve the underlying 
     reasons for the sanction during the 45-day period following 
     the publication of notice in the Federal Register.
       (2) New unilateral economic sanction.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``new unilateral economic sanction'' means 
     a unilateral economic sanction imposed pursuant to a law 
     enacted after the date of enactment of this Act or a sanction 
     imposed after such date of enactment pursuant to the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.).
       (b) Consultation.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall consult with the 
     appropriate congressional committees regarding a proposed new 
     unilateral economic sanction, including consultations 
     regarding efforts to achieve or increase multilateral 
     cooperation on the issues or problems prompting the proposed 
     sanction.
       (2) Classified consultations.--The consultations described 
     in paragraph (1) may be conducted on a classified basis if 
     disclosure would threaten the national security of the United 
     States.
       (c) Public Comment.--The President shall publish a notice 
     in the Federal Register of the opportunity for interested 
     persons to submit comments on any proposed new unilateral 
     economic sanction.
       (d) Requirements for Executive Branch Sanctions.--Any new 
     unilateral economic sanction imposed by the President--
       (1) shall--
       (A) include an assessment of whether--
       (i) the sanction is likely to achieve a specific United 
     States foreign policy or national security objective within a 
     reasonable period of time, which shall be specified; and
       (ii) the achievement of the objectives of the sanction 
     outweighs any costs to United States national interests;
       (B) provide contract sanctity, except that contract 
     sanctity shall not be required in any case--
       (i) in which execution of the contract is contrary to law;
       (ii) in which the contract involves assets that will be 
     frozen as a consequence of the proposed sanction; or
       (iii) in which the contract provides for the supply of 
     goods or services directly to a specific person, government 
     agency, or military unit that is expressly named as a target 
     of the proposed sanction;
       (C) terminate not later than 2 years after the sanction is 
     imposed, unless specifically extended by the President in 
     accordance with this section;
       (D)(i) be targeted as narrowly as possible on foreign 
     governments, entities, and officials that are responsible for 
     the conduct being targeted; and
       (ii) seek to minimize any adverse impact on the 
     humanitarian activities of United States and foreign 
     nongovernmental organizations in a country against which the 
     sanction may be imposed; and
       (E) not include any restriction on the export, financing, 
     support, or provision of medicine, medical equipment, medical 
     supplies, food, or other agricultural commodity (including 
     fertilizer), other than restrictions imposed in response to 
     national security threats, where multilateral sanctions are 
     in place, or restrictions involving a country where the 
     United States is engaged in armed conflict;
       (2) should provide, to the extent that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture finds, that--
       (A) a new unilateral economic sanction is likely to 
     restrict exports of any agricultural commodity from the 
     United States or is likely to result in retaliation against 
     exports of any agricultural commodity from the United States; 
     and
       (B) the sanction is proposed to be imposed, or is likely to 
     be imposed, on a country or countries that constituted, in 
     the preceding calendar year, the market for more than 3 
     percent of all export sales from the United States of an 
     agricultural commodity; and
       (3) should provide that the Secretary of Agriculture expand 
     agricultural export assistance under United States market 
     development, food assistance, and export promotion programs 
     to offset the likely damage to incomes of producers of the 
     affected agricultural commodity, to the maximum extent 
     permitted by law and by the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement on Agriculture referred to in section 
     101(d)(2) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(d)(2)).
       (e) Report by the President.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to imposing any new unilateral 
     economic sanction, the President shall provide a report to 
     the appropriate congressional committees on the proposed 
     sanction. The report shall include the report of the 
     International Trade Commission under subsection (g) (if 
     timely submitted prior to the filing of the report). The 
     report may be provided on a classified basis if disclosure 
     would threaten the national security of the United States. 
     The President's report shall contain the following:
       (A) An explanation of the foreign policy or national 
     security objective or objectives intended to be achieved 
     through the proposed sanction.
       (B) An assessment of--
       (i) the likelihood that the proposed new unilateral 
     economic sanction will achieve its stated objectives within 
     the stated period of time; and
       (ii) the impact of the proposed new unilateral economic 
     sanction on--

       (I) humanitarian conditions, including the impact on 
     conditions in any specific countries on which the sanction is 
     proposed to be imposed;
       (II) humanitarian activities of United States and foreign 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       (III) relations with United States allies; and
       (IV) other United States national security and foreign 
     policy interests, including countries and entities other than 
     those on which the sanction is proposed to be imposed.

       (C) A description and assessment of--
       (i) diplomatic and other steps the United States has taken 
     to accomplish the intended objectives of the proposed 
     sanction;
       (ii) the likelihood of multilateral adoption of comparable 
     measures;
       (iii) comparable measures undertaken by other countries;
       (iv) alternative measures to promote the same objectives, 
     and an assessment of their potential effectiveness;

[[Page S3508]]

       (v) any obligations of the United States under 
     international treaties or trade agreements with which the 
     proposed sanction may conflict;
       (vi) the likelihood that the proposed sanction will lead to 
     retaliation against United States interests, including 
     agricultural interests; and
       (vii) whether the achievement of the objectives of the 
     proposed sanction outweighs any likely costs to United States 
     foreign policy, national security, economic, and humanitarian 
     interests, including any potential harm to United States 
     business, agriculture, and consumers, and any potential harm 
     to the international reputation of the United States as a 
     reliable supplier of products, technology, agricultural 
     commodities, and services.
       (2) Report on other sanctions.--In the case of any 
     unilateral economic sanction that is imposed after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, other than a new unilateral 
     economic sanction described in subsection (a)(2) or a 
     sanction that is a continuation of a sanction in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall not 
     later than 30 days after imposing such sanction submit to 
     Congress a report described in paragraph (1) relating to such 
     sanction. The report may be provided on a classified basis if 
     disclosure would threaten the national security of the United 
     States.
       (f) Report by the Secretary of Agriculture.--Prior to the 
     imposition of a new unilateral economic sanction by the 
     President, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report that shall 
     contain an assessment of--
       (1) the extent to which any country or countries proposed 
     to be sanctioned are markets that accounted for, in the 
     preceding calendar year, more than 3 percent of all export 
     sales from the United States of any agricultural commodity;
       (2) the likelihood that exports of agricultural commodities 
     from the United States will be affected by the proposed 
     sanction or by retaliation by any country proposed to be 
     sanctioned, including specific commodities which are most 
     likely to be affected;
       (3) the likely effect on incomes of producers of the 
     specific commodities identified by the Secretary;
       (4) the extent to which the proposed sanction would permit 
     foreign suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
       (5) the likely effect of the proposed sanction on the 
     reputation of United States farmers as reliable suppliers of 
     agricultural commodities in general, and of the specific 
     commodities identified by the Secretary.
       (g) Report by the United States International Trade 
     Commission.--Before imposing a new unilateral economic 
     sanction, the President shall make a timely request to the 
     United States International Trade Commission for a report on 
     the likely short-term and long-term costs of the proposed 
     sanction to the United States economy, including the 
     potential impact on United States trade performance, 
     employment, and growth, the international reputation of the 
     United States as a reliable supplier of products, 
     agricultural commodities, technology, and services, and the 
     economic well-being and international competitive position of 
     United States industries, firms, workers, farmers, and 
     communities.
       (h) Waiver Authority.--The President may waive any of the 
     requirements of subsections (a), (b), (c), (e)(1), (f), and 
     (g), in the event that the President determines that such a 
     waiver is in the national interest of the United States. In 
     the event of such a waiver, the requirements waived shall be 
     met during the 60-day period immediately following the 
     imposition of the new unilateral economic sanction, and the 
     sanction shall terminate 90 days after being imposed unless 
     such requirements are met. The President may waive any of the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(D), (1)(E), and (2) of 
     subsection (d) in the event that the President determines 
     that the new unilateral economic sanction is related to 
     actual or imminent armed conflict involving the United 
     States.
       (i) Sanctions Review Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     executive branch of Government an interagency committee, 
     which shall be known as the Sanctions Review Committee, which 
     shall have the responsibility of coordinating United States 
     policy regarding unilateral economic sanctions and of 
     providing appropriate recommendations to the President prior 
     to any decision regarding the implementation of any 
     unilateral economic sanction. The Committee shall be composed 
     of the following 11 members, and any other member the 
     President considers appropriate:
       (A) The Secretary of State.
       (B) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       (C) The Secretary of Defense.
       (D) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (E) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (F) The Secretary of Energy.
       (G) The United States Trade Representative.
       (H) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       (I) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
       (J) The Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs.
       (K) The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.
       (2) Chair.--The President shall designate one of the 
     members specified in paragraph (1) to serve as Chair of the 
     Sanctions Review Committee.
       (j) Inapplicability of Other Provisions.--This section 
     applies notwithstanding any other provision of law.

     SEC. 8. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       (a) Annual Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, unless 
     otherwise required under existing law, the President shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     detailing with respect to each country or entity against 
     which a unilateral economic sanction has been imposed--
       (1) the extent to which the sanction has achieved foreign 
     policy or national security objectives of the United States 
     with respect to that country or entity;
       (2) the extent to which the sanction has harmed 
     humanitarian interests in that country, the country in which 
     that entity is located, or in other countries; and
       (3) the impact of the sanction on other national security 
     and foreign policy interests of the United States, including 
     relations with countries friendly to the United States, and 
     on the United States economy.
       (b) Report by the United States International Trade 
     Commission.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the United 
     States International Trade Commission shall report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees on the costs, 
     individually and in the aggregate, of all unilateral economic 
     sanctions in effect under United States law, regulation, or 
     Executive order. The calculation of such costs shall include 
     an assessment of the impact of such measures on the 
     international reputation of the United States as a reliable 
     supplier of products, agricultural commodities, technology, 
     and services.

     SEC. 9. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER AUTHORITY.

       (a) Waiver Authority.--The President may waive the 
     application of any sanction or prohibition (or portion 
     thereof) contained in section 101 or 102 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, or section 2(b)(4) of the Export Import Bank Act of 
     1945 if the President determines that such a waiver would 
     advance the purposes of such Acts or the national security 
     interests of the United States.
       (b) Consultation.--Prior to exercising the waiver authority 
     provided in subsection (a), the President shall consult with 
     the appropriate congressional committees. Such consultations 
     may be conducted on a classified basis if disclosure would 
     threaten the national security of the United States.
       (c) Reports.--At least once every 6 months after exercising 
     the waiver authority in subsection (a), the President shall 
     report to Congress with respect to the actions taken since 
     the submission of the preceding report, and the reasons that 
     continuation of any waiver under subsection (a) remains in 
     the national security interest of the United States.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 20 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


        Sanctions Policy Reform Act of 1999--Section-by-Section

       Section 1: Short title. The act may be cited as the 
     ``Enhancement of Trade, Security and Human Rights through 
     Sanctions Reform Act''
       Section 2: Purpose. The purpose of the Act is to establish 
     an effective framework for consideration of unilateral 
     economic sanctions and to make unilateral economic sanctions, 
     when imposed, more effective.
       Section 3: Statement of Policy. This section sets forth 
     U.S. policy to pursue American security, trade and 
     humanitarian interest through broad-ranging engagement with 
     other countries, while recognizing the need at times to 
     impose sanctions as a last resort. It supports multilateral 
     cooperation as an alternative to unilateral U.S. sanctions. 
     It seeks to promote U.S. economic growth through trade and to 
     maintain America's reputation as a reliable supplier. It 
     opposes boycotts and use of agricultural embargoes as a 
     foreign policy weapon. It urges that economic sanctions be 
     targeted as narrowly as possible, to minimize harm to 
     innocent people or to humanitarian activities.
       Section 4: Definitions. This section defines ``unilateral 
     economic sanction'' as any restriction or condition on 
     economic activity with respect to a foreign country or entity 
     imposed for reasons of foreign policy or national security. 
     This definition excludes multilateral sanctions, where other 
     countries have agreed to adopt ``substantially equivalent'' 
     measures. The definition also excludes U.S. trade laws, 
     Jackson-Vanik, and munitions list controls. This section also 
     defines ``appropriate committees,'' and ``contract 
     sanctity.''
       Section 5: Guidelines for Unilateral Economic Sanctions 
     Legislation. This section provides that any bill or joint 
     resolution imposing or authorizing a unilateral economic 
     sanction should state the U.S. foreign policy or national 
     security objective, terminate after two years unless 
     specifically reauthorized, protect contract sanctity, provide 
     Presidential authority to adjust or waive the sanction in the 
     national interest, target the sanction as narrowly as 
     possible against the parties responsible for the offending 
     conduct, and provide for expanded export promotion if 
     sanctions target a major export market for American farmers.

[[Page S3509]]

       Section 6: Requirements for report Accompanying the Bill. 
     The committee reporting sanctions legislation shall request 
     reports from the President and Secretary of Agriculture. 
     These reports shall be included in the committee report. If 
     the legislation does not meet any Section guideline, the 
     committee report shall explain why not. The President's 
     report shall contain an assessment of the likelihood that the 
     proposed sanction will achieve its stated objective within a 
     reasonable time. It must weight the likely foreign policy, 
     national security, economic, and humanitarian benefits 
     against the costs of acting unilaterally. The report will 
     also assess alternatives, such as prior diplomatic and other 
     U.S. steps and comparable multilateral measures.
       The Secretary of Agriculture's report shall assess the 
     likely extent of the proposed legislation in terms of market 
     share in affected countries, the likelihood that U.S. 
     agricultural exports will be affected, and the impact on the 
     reputation of U.S. farmers as reliable suppliers.
       Section 6 also considers unilateral sanctions as unfunded 
     federal mandates for purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Act. 
     The Congressional Budget Office shall assess the likely 
     short- and long-term cost of the proposed sanctions to the 
     U.S. economy.
       Section 7: Requirements for Executive Action. The President 
     may impose a unilateral sanction no less than 45 days after 
     announcing his intention to do so, during which time he shall 
     consult with Congressional committees and publish a notice in 
     the Federal Register seeking public comment. Any Executive 
     sanction must meet the same guidelines that Section 5 applies 
     to the Congress and must, in addition, include a clear 
     finding that the sanction is likely to achieve a specific 
     U.S. foreign policy or national security objective within a 
     reasonable period of time.
       Sanction 7 also requires--prior to the imposition of a 
     unilateral sanction--the President and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to provide to the appropriate Congressional 
     committees reports that contain the same assessment as 
     required in the reports described in Section 6. The President 
     shall also request a report by the U.S. International Trade 
     Commission on the likely short- and long-term costs of the 
     proposed sanctions to the U.S. economy, including the 
     potential impact on U.S. competitiveness.
       In case of national emergency, the bill allows the 
     President temporarily to waive most Section 7 requirements in 
     order to act immediately. If the President acts on an 
     emergency basis, the waived requirements must be met within 
     sixty days. Finally, the President shall establish an 
     interagency Sanctions Review Committee to improve 
     coordination of U.S. policy regarding unilateral sanctions.
       Section 8: Annual Reports. The President must submit to the 
     appropriate committees a report each year detailing the 
     extent to which sanctions have achieved U.S. objectives, as 
     well as their impact on humanitarian and other U.S. 
     interests, including relations with friendly countries. The 
     U.S. International Trade Commission shall report to the 
     Congress on the costs, individually and in the aggregate, of 
     all unilateral economic sanctions in effect under U.S. law, 
     regulation, or Executive order, including the impact on U.S. 
     competitiveness.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Sessions, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 758. A bill to establish legal standards and procedures for the 
fair, prompt, inexpensive, and efficient resolution of personal injury 
claims arising out of asbestos exposure, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


             fairness in asbestos compensation act of 1999

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness 
in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999. I want to thank all of the 
Senators who have cosponsored this bill. This bill is a bipartisan 
effort and the diverse group of Senators who support the bill reflects 
a serious effort to solve a serious problem, not an effort to gain 
partisan advantage. I particularly want to thank Senator Dodd for his 
assistance on this bill and Senator Hatch for his leadership in 
introducing similar legislation in the last Congress.
  I am introducing this bill and I support this bill for a simple 
reason--it makes sense. The problems caused by the manufacture and use 
of asbestos are well-documented. Although some companies initially 
denied responsibility and resisted suits to recover for asbestos-
related injuries in court, the injuries associated with asbestos and 
the liability of manufacturers for those injuries are now well-
established.
  The courts--both state and federal--have done an admirable job of 
establishing the facts and legal rules concerning asbestos. That is a 
job the courts do well. However, now that the basic facts and liability 
rules have been established, the courts are being asked simply to 
process claims. That is not a job the courts do particularly well. The 
rules governing court actions give parties rights to dispute facts that 
have been conclusively established in other proceedings. All the while 
the meter is running for the lawyers on both sides. Dollars that could 
go to compensate deserving victims, instead go to lawyers and court 
costs.
  In the asbestos context, these problems are exacerbated by the finite 
resources available to compensate victims. What is more, the legal 
rules concerning both punitive damages and what constitutes a 
sufficient injury to bring suit make for jury awards that do not 
correspond to the seriousness of the injury. Someone filing suit 
because of a preliminary manifestation of a minor injury, such as 
pleural thickening, that may never lead to more severe symptoms may 
receive more compensation than another person with more serious 
asbestos-related injuries. None of this is to suggest that it is 
somehow wrong for plaintiffs with a minor injury to file suit. To the 
contrary, some state rules concerning when injury occurs obligate 
plaintiffs to file suits or risk having their suit dismissed as time-
barred. What is more, in light of the finite number of remaining 
solvent asbestos defendants, potential plaintiffs have every incentive 
to file suit as soon as legally permissible.
  The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999 attempts to address 
these problems by establishing an administrative claims systems that 
aims to compensate victims of asbestos rationally and efficiently. The 
Act accomplishes this goal by classifying claimants according to the 
severity of their injuries, ensuring that those with more serious 
injuries receive greater awards, securing a compensation fund so that 
victims whose conditions are not yet manifest can recover in the 
future, and eliminating the statute of limitations and injury rules 
that force plaintiffs into court prematurely. Although I wish I could 
claim some pride of authorship in these mechanisms, these basic 
features were all part of a proposed global asbestos settlement 
agreement worked out by representatives of both plaintiffs and 
defendants.
  The Supreme Court rejected the proposed global asbestos settlement in 
Amchem Products versus Windsor. The District Court had certified a 
settlement class under Rule 23 that included extensive medical and 
compensation criteria that both plaintiffs and defendants had accepted. 
The Supreme Court ruled that this type of global, nationwide settlement 
of tort claims brought under fifty different state laws could not be 
sustained under Rule 23. The Court recognized that such a global 
settlement would conserve judicial resources and likely would promote 
the public interest. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that Rule 23 was 
too thin a reed to support this massive settlement, and that if the 
parties desired a nationwide settlement they needed to direct their 
attention to the Congress, rather than the Courts.
  I believe the Supreme Court was right on both counts--the proposed 
settlement criteria were in the public interest, but the proposed class 
simply could not be sustained under Rule 23. The Rules Enabling Act and 
the inherent limits on the power of federal courts preclude an 
interpretation of Rule 23 that would result in a federal court 
overriding or homogenizing varying state laws. However, as the Supreme 
Court pointed out, Congress has the power to do directly what the 
courts lack the power to do through a strained interpretation of Rule 
23.
  This bill takes up the challenge of the Supreme Court and addresses 
the tragic problem of asbestos. The bill incorporates the medical and 
compensation criteria agreed to by the parties in the Amchem settlement 
and employs them as the basis for a legislative settlement. In the 
simplest terms, the legislation proposes an administrative claims 
process to compensate individuals injured by asbestos as a substitute 
for the tort system (although individuals retain an ability to opt-in 
to the tort system after using the administrative claims system to 
narrow the issues in dispute). The net effect of this legislation 
should be to funnel a greater percentage of the pool of limited 
resources to injured plaintiffs, rather than to lawyers for plaintiffs 
and defendants.

[[Page S3510]]

  I want to be clear, however, that I am not here to suggest that this 
is a perfect bill. This bill represents a complex solution to a complex 
problem. A number of groups will be affected by this legislation, and 
it may be necessary to make changes to ensure that no one is unfairly 
disadvantaged by this legislation. But that said, I am confident that 
we can make the needed changes. We have a bipartisan group of Senators 
who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation, and the bill represents 
a sufficient improvement in efficiency over the existing litigation 
quagmire that there should be ample room to work out any differences.
  Finally, let me also note that this bill also plays a minor but 
important role in preserving a proper balance in the separation of 
powers. I have been a strong and consistent critic of judicial 
activism. Judges who make legal rules out of whole cloth in the absence 
of constitutional or statutory text damage the standing of the 
judiciary and our constitutional structure. On the other hand, when 
judges issue opinions in which they recognize that a particular outcome 
might well be in the public interest, but nonetheless is not supported 
by the existing law, they reinforce the proper, limited role of the 
judiciary. Too often, federal judges are tempted to reach the result 
they favor as a policy matter without regard to the law. When judges 
succumb to that temptation, they are justly criticized. But when they 
resist that temptation, their self-restraint should be recognized and 
applauded. The Court in Amchem rightly recognized a problem that the 
judiciary acting alone could not solve. By offering a legislative 
solution to that problem the bill provides the proper incentives for 
courts to be restrained and reinforces the proper roles of Congress and 
the Judiciary.
  In short, this bill provides a proper legislative solution to the 
asbestos litigation problem. It ensures that, in an area in which 
extensive litigation has already established facts and assigned 
responsibility, scarce dollars compensate victims, not lawyers. I want 
to thank my co-sponsors for their work on the bill. I look forward to 
working with them to ensure final passage of this legislation. The 
courts have completed their proper role in ascertaining facts and 
liability. It is time for Congress to step in to provide a better 
mechanism to direct scarce resources to deserving victims.
 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to introduce the ``Fairness in Asbestos 
Compensation Act of 1999''. This legislation would expedite the 
provision of financial compensation to the victims of asbestos exposure 
by establishing a nationwide administrative system to hear and 
adjudicate their claims.
  Mr. President, millions of American workers have been exposed to 
asbestos on the job. Tragically, many have contracted asbestos-related 
illnesses, which can be devastating and deadly. Others will surely 
become similarly afflicted. These individuals--who have or will become 
terribly ill due to no fault of their own--deserve swift and fair 
compensation to help meet the costs of health care, lost income, and 
other economic and non-economic losses.
  Unfortunately, many victims of asbestos exposure are not receiving 
the efficient and just treatment they deserve from our legal system. 
Indeed, it can be said that the current asbestos litigation system is 
in a state of crisis. Today, more than 150,000 lawsuits clog the state 
and federal courts. In 1996 along, more than 36,000 new suits were 
filed. Those who have been injured by asbestos exposure must often wait 
years for compensation. And when that compensation finally arrives, it 
is often eaten up by attorneys' fees and other transaction costs.
  In the early 1990's, an effort was made to improve the management of 
federal asbestos litigation. Cases were consolidated, and a settlement 
to resolve them administratively was agreed to between defendant 
companies and plaintiffs' attorneys. This settlement also obtained the 
backing of the Building and Construction Trades Union of the AFL-CIO. 
Regrettably, the settlement was overturned by the Third Circuit Court 
of Appeals in 1996. Though the Court termed the settlement ``arguably a 
brilliant partial solution'', it found that the class of people created 
by the settlement--namely, those exposed to asbestos--was too large and 
varied to be certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In its 
decision, the Court effectively invited the Congress to provide for the 
existence of such a settlement as a fair and efficient way to resolve 
asbestos litigation claims.
  Hence this bill. In simple terms, it codifies the settlement reached 
between companies and the representatives of workers who were exposed 
to asbestos on the job. It would establish a body to review claims by 
those who believe that they have become ill due to exposure to 
asbestos. It would provide workers with mediation and binding 
arbitration to promote the fair and swift settlement of their claims. 
It would allow plaintiffs to seek additional compensation if their non-
malignant disease later developed into cancer. And it would limit 
attorneys' fees so as to ensure that a claimant receives a just portion 
of any settlement amount.
  All in all, Mr. President, this is a good bill. However, it is not a 
perfect bill. My office has received comments on the bill from 
representatives of a number of parties affected by asbestos litigation. 
I hope and expect that those comments will be given the consideration 
that they deserve by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate as 
this legislation moves forward.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor 
of the legislation, the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 
1999,'' which Senator Ashcroft is introducing today. This legislation's 
other sponsors include: Senator Dodd, Senator Sessions, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Grassley, Senator Torricelli, Senator Smith, and 
Senator Schumer.
  State and federal courts are overwhelmed by up to 150,000 asbestos 
lawsuits today, and there are new suits being filed. Unfortunately, 
those who are truly sick with asbestos and various asbestos-related 
cancers and illnesses spend years in court before receiving any 
compensation, and then usually lose more than half of that compensation 
to attorneys' fees and other costs. One cause of this extraordinary 
delay in compensation is the large number of lawsuits filed by those 
who, without any symptoms or signs of asbestos-related illness, bring 
suits for future medical monitoring and fear of cancer.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that as juries award enormous 
compensation and outrageous punitive damages to non-impaired 
plaintiffs, others with actual illnesses receive little or no 
compensation. As legal and financial resources are tied up and 
exhausted, it is increasingly unclear whether those who are truly 
inflicted with asbestos-caused diseases will be able to recover 
anything at all in the years ahead.
  Courts have tried unsuccessfully to cope with this problem. The major 
parties involved attempted to compromise on a solution that included 
prompt compensation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned one 
such compromise, known as the Amchem or Georgine agreement, on civil 
procedural rule grounds, but found the settlement to be ``arguably a 
brilliant partial solution.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for 
the Supreme Court, upheld the Appellate decision and stated, ``[t]he 
argument is sensibly made that a nationwide administrative claims 
processing regime would provide the most secure, fair and efficient 
means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. Congress, however, 
has not adopted such a solution.'' The Court accurately recognized that 
Congress is the most appropriate body to resolve the asbestos crisis. 
That is what this legislation is aimed to do.
  Mr. President, through the hundreds of thousands of cases that 
already have been litigated in the court system, the legal and 
scientific issues relating to asbestos litigation have been thoroughly 
explored. This, along with the recent court decisions demonstrate that 
the asbestos litigation issue is now ripe for a legislative solution.
  This bill we introduce today will correct the asbestos litigation 
crisis problems. It is crafted to reflect as closely as possible the 
original settlement agreed to by the involved parties in the Amchem 
settlement. This bill will eliminate the asbestos litigation burden in 
the courts, get fair compensation for those who currently are sick,

[[Page S3511]]

and enable the businesses to manage their liabilities in order to 
ensure that compensation will be available for future claimants. It is 
important to note that no tax-payer money will fund this bill.
  We have carefully crafted this legislation so that it is at least as 
favorable--and, in many cases, more favorable--to claimants as the 
original Amchem settlement. As this bill makes its way through the 
legislative process, I look forward to working with Senator Ashcroft 
and my colleagues to further refine the language in order to achieve 
the maximum public benefit from this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Burns, and Mr. 
        Reid):
  S. 759. A bill to regulate the transmission of unsolicited commercial 
electronic mail on the Internet, and for other purposes.


                       Inbox Privacy Act of 1999

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inbox 
Privacy Act of 1999 on behalf of myself, Senators Torricelli, Burns and 
Reid. Our legislation provides a solution to the burden of junk e-mail, 
also known as spam, that now plagues the Internet. There are five main 
components to this legislation:
  Online marketers must honestly identify themselves
  Consumers have the ultimate decision as to what comes into their 
inbox
  Consumers and domain owners can stop further transmissions of spam to 
those who do not want to receive it
  Internet Service Providers are relieved from the burdens associated 
with spam
  A federal solution is provided to a nationwide problem while giving 
states, ISP's, and the Federal Trade Commission authority to go after 
those who flood the Internet with fraudulent emails.
  The burden of spam is evident in my home state of Alaska. Unlike 
urban and suburban areas of the nation where a local telephone call is 
all it takes to log onto the Internet, rural areas of Alaska and many 
other states have no such local access.
  Every minute connected to the Internet, whether it is for researching 
a school project, checking a bank balance, searching for the latest 
information on the weather at the local airport, or even shopping 
online incurs a per minute long distance charge. The extra financial 
cost of the longer call to download spam may only be a small amount on 
a day to day basis, but over the long term this cost is a very real 
financial disincentive to using the Internet. Some estimates place the 
cost at over $200 per year for rural Americans.
  If Internet commerce is to continue to expand, all Internet consumers 
must be able to avoid costs for the receipt of advertising material 
such as spam that they do not want to receive. As I've said before, the 
Internet is not a tool for every huckster to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.
  Last Congress I was the author of Title III of S. 1618 which 
unanimously passed the Senate and was supported by a variety of 
interested Internet groups. Some wanted an outright ban on such 
solicitations, but banning non-fraudulent Internet commerce is a 
dangerous precedent to set, particularly where the problem today is 
caused by fraudulent marketers. I also recognize that there are First 
Amendment concerns raised by any Internet content legislation and am 
pleased that our approach has the support of civil liberties 
organizations.
  The most significant difference between this legislation and Title 
III of S. 1618 is the addition of a domain-wide opt-out system that 
allows Internet domain owners to put up an electronic stop sign to 
signify their desire to not receive unsolicited commercial email to 
addresses served by their domain. However, to ensure that the Internet 
consumer has the ultimate choice, consumers would be able to inform 
their ISP of their continuing desire to receive junk e-mail. While I 
doubt that there will be too many Internet consumers who want to 
receive junk e-mail, Congress should not make the decision for them by 
banning junk e-mail outright, no matter how annoying it may be. Not 
only should consumers have the ultimate choice, but if Congress bans 
junk e-mail, what else on the Internet will we ban next?
  Finally, I have included a state enforcement provision that allows 
all states to enforce a national standard on junk e-mail. As Congress 
has seen before in the Internet Tax Freedom debate, a unified approach 
to any Internet legislation is key to promoting the development of the 
Internet. Just as having 50 state tax policies on Internet transactions 
represents a poor policy decision, so would having 50 state policies on 
spam legislation. My approach solves this dilemma by setting such a 
national standard that provides for even greater protection that what a 
few states have already enacted. By setting a national standard, it 
also solves the constitutional dilemma that many states face regarding 
long-arm jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, the Inbox Privacy Act represents a significant step 
forward for Internet consumers and domain owners and I urge its 
adoption by my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 759

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Inbox Privacy Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSMISSIONS OF UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC 
                   MAIL.

       (a) Prohibition on Transmission to Persons Declining 
     Receipt.--
       (1) In general.--A person may not initiate the transmission 
     of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to another person 
     if such other person submits to the person a request that the 
     initiation of the transmission of such mail by the person to 
     such other person not occur.
       (2) Form of request.--A request under paragraph (1) may 
     take any form appropriate to notify a person who initiates 
     the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail of 
     the request, including an appropriate reply to a notice 
     specified in subsection (d)(2).
       (3) Constructive authorization.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for purposes 
     of this subsection, a person who secures a good or service 
     from, or otherwise responds electronically to an offer in a 
     commercial electronic mail message shall be deemed to have 
     authorized the initiation of transmissions of unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail from the person who initiated 
     transmission of the message.
       (B) No authorization for request for termination.--A reply 
     to a notice specified in subsection (d)(2) shall not 
     constitute authorization for the initiation of transmissions 
     of unsolicited commercial electronic mail under this 
     paragraph.
       (b) Prohibition on Transmission to Domain Owners Declining 
     Receipt.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     person may not initiate the transmission of unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail to any electronic mail addresses 
     served by a domain if the domain owner has elected not to 
     receive transmissions of such mail at the domain in 
     accordance with subsection (c).
       (2) Exceptions.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply in the case of the following:
       (A) A domain owner initiating transmissions of commercial 
     electronic mail to its own domain.
       (B) Any customer of an Internet service provider or 
     interactive computer service provider included on a list 
     under subsection (c)(3)(C).
       (c) Domain-wide opt-out system.--
       (1) In general.--A domain owner may elect not to receive 
     transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail at 
     its own domain.
       (2) Notice of election.--A domain owner making an election 
     under this subsection shall--
       (A) notify the Federal Trade Commission of the election in 
     such form and manner as the Commission shall require for 
     purposes of section 4(c); and
       (B) if the domain owner is an Internet service provider or 
     interactive computer service provider, notify the customers 
     of its Internet service or interactive computer service, as 
     the case may be, in such manner as the provider customarily 
     employs for notifying such customers of matters relating to 
     such service, of--
       (i) the election; and
       (ii) the authority of the customers to make the election 
     provided for under paragraph (3).
       (3) Customer election to continue receipt of mail.--
       (A) Election.--Any customer of an Internet service provider 
     or interactive computer service provider receiving a notice 
     under

[[Page S3512]]

     paragraph (2)(B) may elect to continue to receive 
     transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail 
     through the domain covered by the notice, notwithstanding the 
     election of the Internet service provider or interactive 
     computer service provider under paragraph (1) to which the 
     notice applies.
       (B) Transmittal of mail.--An Internet service provider or 
     interactive computer service provider may not impose or 
     collect any fee for the receipt of unsolicited commercial 
     electronic mail under this paragraph (other than the usual 
     and customary fee imposed and collected for the receipt of 
     commercial electronic mail by its customers) or otherwise 
     discriminate against a customer for the receipt of such mail 
     under this paragraph.
       (C) List of customers making election.--
       (i) Requirement.--An Internet service provider or 
     interactive computer service provider shall maintain a list 
     of each of its current customers who have made an election 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Availability of list.--Each such provider shall make 
     such list available to the public in such form and manner as 
     the Commission shall require for purposes of section 4(c).
       (iii) Prohibition on fee.--A provider may not impose or 
     collect any fee in connection with any action taken under 
     this subparagraph.
       (d) Information To Be Included in All Transmissions.--A 
     person initiating the transmission of any unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail message shall include in the body 
     of such message the following information:
       (1) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, 
     and telephone number of the person.
       (2) A clear and obvious notice that the person will cease 
     further transmissions of commercial electronic mail to the 
     recipient of the message at no cost to that recipient upon 
     the transmittal by that recipient to the person, at the 
     electronic mail address from which transmission of the 
     message was initiated, of an electronic mail message 
     containing the word ``remove'' in the subject line.
       (e) Routing Information.--A person initiating the 
     transmission of any commercial electronic mail message shall 
     ensure that all Internet routing information contained in or 
     accompanying such message is accurate, valid according to the 
     prevailing standards for Internet protocols, and accurately 
     reflects the routing of such message.

     SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH SALE 
                   OF GOODS OR SERVICES OVER THE INTERNET.

       (a) Authority to Regulate.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Trade Commission may prescribe 
     rules for purposes of defining and prohibiting deceptive acts 
     or practices in connection with the promotion, advertisement, 
     offering for sale, or sale of goods or services on or by 
     means of the Internet.
       (2) Commercial electronic mail.--The rules under paragraph 
     (1) may contain specific provisions addressing deceptive acts 
     or practices in the initiation, transmission, or receipt of 
     commercial electronic mail.
       (3) Nature of violation.--The rules under paragraph (1) 
     shall treat any violation of such rules as a violation of a 
     rule under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 57a), relating to unfair or deceptive acts or 
     practices affecting commerce.
       (b) Prescription.--Section 553 of title 5, United States 
     Code, shall apply to the prescription of any rules under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO 
                   UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

       (a) Investigation.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon notice of 
     an alleged violation of a provision of section 2, the Federal 
     Trade Commission may conduct an investigation in order to 
     determine whether or not the violation occurred.
       (2) Limitation.--The Commission may not undertake an 
     investigation of an alleged violation under paragraph (1) 
     more than 2 years after the date of the alleged violation.
       (3) Receipt of notices.--The Commission shall provide for 
     appropriate means of receiving notices under paragraph (1). 
     Such means shall include an Internet web page on the World 
     Wide Web that the Commission maintains for that purpose.
       (b) Enforcement Powers.--If as a result of an investigation 
     under subsection (a) the Commission determines that a 
     violation of a provision of section 2 has occurred, the 
     Commission shall have the power to enforce such provision as 
     if such violation were a violation of a rule prescribed under 
     section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     57a), relating to unfair or deceptive acts or practices 
     affecting commerce.
       (c) Information on Elections Under Domain-Wide Opt-Out 
     System.--
       (1) Initial site for information.--The Commission shall 
     establish and maintain an Internet web page on the World Wide 
     Web containing information sufficient to make known to the 
     public for purposes of section 2 the domain owners who have 
     made an election under subsection (c)(1) of that section and 
     the persons who have made an election under subsection (c)(3) 
     of that section.
       (2) Alternative site.--The Commission may from time to time 
     select another means of making known to the public the 
     information specified in paragraph (1). Any such selection 
     shall be made in consultation with the members of the 
     Internet community.
       (d) Assistance of Other Federal Agencies.--Other Federal 
     departments and agencies may, upon request of the Commission, 
     assist the Commission in carrying out activities under this 
     section.

     SEC. 5. ACTIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--Whenever the attorney general of a State 
     has reason to believe that the interests of the residents of 
     the State have been or are being threatened or adversely 
     affected because any person is engaging in a pattern or 
     practice of the transmission of electronic mail in violation 
     of a provision of section 2, or of any rule prescribed 
     pursuant to section 3, the State, as parens patriae, may 
     bring a civil action on behalf of its residents to enjoin 
     such transmission, to enforce compliance with such provision 
     or rule, to obtain damages or other compensation on behalf of 
     its residents, or to obtain such further and other relief as 
     the court considers appropriate.
       (b) Notice to Commission.--
       (1) Notice.--The State shall serve prior written notice of 
     any civil action under this section on the Federal Trade 
     Commission and provide the Commission with a copy of its 
     complaint, except that if it is not feasible for the State to 
     provide such prior notice, the State shall serve written 
     notice immediately after instituting such action.
       (2) Rights of commission.--On receiving a notice with 
     respect to a civil action under paragraph (1), the Commission 
     shall have the right--
       (A) to intervene in the action;
       (B) upon so intervening, to be heard in all matters arising 
     therein; and
       (C) to file petitions for appeal.
       (c) Actions by Commission.--Whenever a civil action has 
     been instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for 
     violation of a provision of section 2, or of any rule 
     prescribed pursuant to section 3, no State may, during the 
     pendency of such action, institute a civil action under this 
     section against any defendant named in the complaint in such 
     action for violation of any provision or rule as alleged in 
     the complaint.
       (d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing a civil action 
     under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall prevent 
     an attorney general from exercising the powers conferred on 
     the attorney general by the laws of the State concerned to 
     conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations 
     or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary or other evidence.
       (e) Venue; Service of Process.--Any civil action brought 
     under subsection (a) in a district court of the United States 
     may be brought in the district in which the defendant is 
     found, is an inhabitant, or transacts business or wherever 
     venue is proper under section 1391 of title 28, United States 
     Code. Process in such an action may be served in any district 
     in which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which the 
     defendant may be found.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Attorney general.--The term ``attorney general'' means 
     the chief legal officer of a State.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the 
     Republic of Palau, and any possession of the United States.

     SEC. 6. ACTIONS BY INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND INTERACTIVE 
                   COMPUTER SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       (a) Actions Authorized.--In addition to any other remedies 
     available under any other provision of law, any Internet 
     service provider or interactive computer service provider 
     adversely affected by a violation of section 2(b)(1) may, 
     within 1 year after discovery of the violation, bring a civil 
     action in a district court of the United States against a 
     person who violates such section.
       (b) Relief.--
       (1) In general.--An action may be brought under subsection 
     (a) to enjoin a violation referred to in that subsection, to 
     enforce compliance with the provision referred to in that 
     subsection, to obtain damages as specified in paragraph (2), 
     or to obtain such further and other relief as the court 
     considers appropriate.
       (2) Damages.--
       (A) In general.--The amount of damages in an action under 
     this section for a violation specified in subsection (a) may 
     not exceed $50,000 per day in which electronic mail 
     constituting such violation was received.
       (B) Relationship to other damages.--Damages awarded under 
     this subsection for a violation under subsection (a) are in 
     addition to any other damages awardable for the violation 
     under any other provision of law.
       (C) Cost and fees.--The court may, in issuing any final 
     order in any action brought under subsection (a), award costs 
     of suit, reasonable costs of obtaining service of process, 
     reasonable attorney fees, and expert witness fees for the 
     prevailing party.
       (c) Venue; Service of Process.--Any civil action brought 
     under subsection (a) in a district court of the United States 
     may be brought in the district in which the defendant or in 
     which the Internet service provider or interactive computer 
     service provider is located, is an inhabitant, or transacts 
     business or wherever venue is proper under section 1391 of 
     title 28, United States Code.

[[Page S3513]]

     Process in such an action may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which the 
     defendant may be found.

     SEC. 7. PREEMPTION.

       This Act preempts any State or local laws regarding the 
     transmission or receipt of commercial electronic mail.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commercial electronic mail.--The term ``commercial 
     electronic mail'' means any electronic mail or similar 
     message whose primary purpose is to initiate a commercial 
     transaction, not including messages sent by persons to others 
     with whom they have a prior business relationship.
       (2) Initiate a transmission.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``initiate the transmission'', in 
     the case of an electronic mail message, means to originate 
     the electronic mail message.
       (B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include any intervening 
     action to relay, handle, or otherwise retransmit an 
     electronic mail message, unless such action is carried out in 
     intentional violation of a provision of section 2.
       (3) Interactive computer service provider.--The term 
     ``interactive computer service provider'' means a provider of 
     an interactive computer service (as that term is defined in 
     section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 230(e)(2)).
       (4) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 230(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1)).

                       INBOX PRIVACY ACT OF 1999

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, thank Senator Murkowski, my 
distinguished colleague from Alaska, with whom I have worked many 
months in this effort. I also thank Senator Burns, Chairman of the 
Communications subcommittee, who has greatly assisted us with this 
legislation and Senator Reid for joining with us on this important 
legislation.
  Last year, I recognized the growing threat to Internet commerce and 
communication posed by the proliferation of unsolicited junk e-mail, or 
so-called ``Spam.'' Junk e-mail is an unfortunate side effect of the 
burgeoning world of Internet communication and commerce. While Internet 
traffic doubles every 100 days, as much as 30 percent of that traffic 
is junk e-mail.
  Like many other Americans, I have an America Online account and am 
inundated with unsolicited messages, peddling every item imaginable. 
Similarly, I receive junk e-mail daily at my official senate e-mail 
address, along with the complaints of dozens of constituents who 
forward me the Spam that they receive.
  The incentive to abuse the Internet is obvious. Sending an e-mail to 
as many as 10 million people can cost as little as a couple of hundred 
dollars. Today, unsolicited commercial e-mailers are hiding their 
identities, falsifying their return addresses and refusing to respond 
to complaints or removal requests. Because the senders of these e-mails 
are generally unknown, they avoid any possible retribution from 
consumers. Their actions approach fraud, but our current law are not 
strong enough to stop them.
  I have long been concerned about executive--indeed any--government 
regulation of the Internet. Many of the best qualities of American life 
are represented and enhanced by the Internet, and I fear government 
regulation has the possibility to stifle the creativity and development 
of cyberspace.
  However, a failure to address the problem of junk e-mail now poses a 
greater threat to the Internet than do minimal regulations. The massive 
amount of junk e-mail in an already strained system is increasingly 
responsible for slowdowns, and even breakdowns, of Internet services. 
For example, just last March spammers crashed Pacific Bell's Network, 
leaving customers without service for 24 hours.
  Let me be clear, this legislation is not a de facto regulation of the 
Internet. In fact, it does not go as a complete ban on junk e-mail as 
some have suggested. While I understand the concerns of those who seek 
a complete ban, I believe that the government should not hastily pass 
broad legislation to regulate the Internet. The Inbox Privacy Act will 
address the spam problem by giving citizens and Internet service 
providers the power to stop unwanted e-mail. But Congress must move 
quickly to address this situation before junk e-mail becomes a serious 
impediment to the flow of ideas and commerce on the Internet.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 760. A bill to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the 50 States 
Commemorative Coin Program; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.


               Commemorative Coin Amendments Act of 1999

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Jeff 
Bingaman in introducing the Commemorative Coin Amendments Act of 1999. 
Our legislation would extend the new commemorative quarter program to 
include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. As one of 
the few Members of Congress who can remember when my home state was a 
territory and as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
with jurisdiction over the territories of the United States, I feel 
that it is more than appropriate for the U.S. Mint to recognize the 
contributions of these six entities.
  However, Mr. President, the reason for minting these six coins goes 
beyond historical significance. Americans who work in the mining and 
transportation industries will benefit from my legislation. The U.S. 
Treasury will benefit as collectors remove quarters from circulation. 
The government spends 5 cents to mint each quarter. Any quarter removed 
from circulation by collectors earns the U.S. Treasury a profit of 20 
cents. A study by Coopers and Lybrand found that the the federal 
Treasury could take in more than $2 billion dollars for the first fifty 
quarter designs. Six more coins will certainly add to that revenue 
windfall.
  Mr. President, let me turn to the historical reasons for this bill. 
The District of Columbia was the only land designated by the U.S. 
Constitution. It has served as the home of Congress and the White House 
for all but brief periods of time. Within its boundaries reside the 
Archives of the United States, home of the original Constitution and 
Declaration of Independence. The District of Columbia is home to 
numerous monuments honoring important Americans who have changed the 
course of history as well as events that have changed the course of our 
nation. The District of Columbia was where Martin Luther King spoke his 
moving ``I have a dream'' address. And finally, it is the place that 
the world looks to for political and economic leadership.
  The inclusion of the territories of the United States in this 
legislation serves as an important reminder of our history. With very 
few exceptions, such as Texas and those States that formed the original 
thirteen Colonies, all of my colleagues come from States that at one 
time were territories. Four of us actually remember the days when our 
constituents were not represented in the Senate and were afforded only 
a non-voting delegate in the House. The history of our Nation is 
written in the development of the territories--the social and economic 
forces that forged our Nation.
  Our current inhabited territories are an integral part of that 
heritage and are also a part of our future. Guam, the southernmost of 
the Mariana Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were acquired 
at the conclusion of the Spanish- American war, as was the Philippines. 
Their acquisition and subsequent development was the focus of a 
spirited debate in Congress, the Administration, and eventually in the 
Supreme Court over the nature and applicability of provisions of the 
Constitution. Not since the Louisiana Purchase a century earlier had 
there been such a debate over the boundaries of the United States. 
Guam, acquired in one war, was occupied by Japan in another. The 
sacrifices of the residents of Guam prior to liberation led to the 
granting of citizenship and the establishment of full local self-
government. Former President Bush was forced to ditch his plane during 
the conflict in the Marianas and our former colleague, Senator Heflin, 
was wounded in the liberation of Guam.

  Puerto Rico, with a population approaching 4 million and an economy 
larger than many States, has set the mark in political self-government 
for those territories that are not fully under the Constitution. Puerto 
Rico was the first territory to achieve local self-government pursuant 
to a locally

[[Page S3514]]

drafted Constitution other than as part of either Statehood or 
Independence. Since that time, however, both American Samoa and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas have adopted local constitutions 
and both Guam and the Virgin Islands exercise similar authorities under 
their Organic legislation. Puerto Rico has the longest continually 
occupied capital in the United States, San Juan, and was the site where 
one of its Governors, Ponce de Leon, sailed for Florida.
  American Samoa was acquired under Treaties of Cession in 1900 and 
1904 following the Tripartite Agreement between Great Britain, Germany, 
and the United States. The history of the Samoas demonstrates both the 
European conflicts in the Pacific as well as the emergence of the 
United States as a Pacific power. American Samoa, the only territory 
south of the Equator, demonstrates the diversity that marks this 
Nation. American Samoa is the only territory where the residents are 
nationals rather than citizens of the United States. Past Governors, 
such as Peter Coleman, have been important representatives of the 
United States in the Pacific community and respected leaders.
  The United States Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1916 
for $25 million. The purchase did not provoke the divisive debates that 
surrounded the Louisiana Purchase nor some of the merriment that 
accompanied the purchase of Alaska. The Danish heritage continues to be 
evident in the capitol at Charlotte Amalie on St. Thomas as well as at 
Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix, the heart of the 
former Danish West Indies. Salt River Bay, on St. Croix, is the only 
known site where members of the Columbus expedition actually set foot 
on what is now United States soil.
  The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is the newest 
territory of the United States. The area had been part of a League of 
Nations Mandate to Japan prior to World War II and saw some of the 
fiercest fighting of the Pacific theater, especially on Saipan. The 
attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which brought the war to an end were 
launched from Tinian. After the war, the area became part of a United 
Nation's Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. In 1976 the United 
States approved a Covenant to establish a Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, a document that had been negotiated with 
representatives of the Marianas government and approved in a local U.N. 
observed plebescite. Formal extension of United States sovereignty came 
with the termination of the Trusteeship by the Security Council a 
decade later. As an interesting historical note, the acquisition of the 
Northern Mariana Islands ends the artificial division created in 1898 
when the United States acquired Guam and Spain sold the remainder of 
its possessions in the Marianas to Germany.
  Mr. President, the District of Columbia and the territories are an 
important part of our heritage and our future. They encompass territory 
where our nation's government resides, where Columbus landed in the 
Virgin Islands, and where ``America's Day Begins'' in the Pacific. It 
is altogether fitting that their unique character and contributions be 
recognized by the issuance of appropriate coins.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 760

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commemorative Coin 
     Amendments Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO COIN PROGRAM.

       Section 5112(l) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Inclusion of non-states.--
       ``(A) In general.--During the 1-year period beginning at 
     the end of the period described in paragraph (1)(A), quarter 
     dollar coins shall be minted and issued having designs on the 
     reverse side that are emblematic of each of the 6 non-States.
       ``(B) Applicability.--The requirements of paragraphs (2) 
     through (6) shall apply to coins issued in commemoration of 
     the non-States, except that, for purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) references in those paragraphs to `States' and `the 
     50 States' shall be construed to be references to the 6 non-
     States;
       ``(ii) references in these paragraphs to the `10-year 
     period' shall be construed to be references to the 1-year 
     period described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; and
       ``(iii) references in those paragraphs to the `50 designs' 
     shall be construed to be references to the 6 designs relating 
     to the non-States.
       ``(C) Order.--Coins shall be minted and issued for non-
     States in the order in which they appear in subparagraph (D).
       ``(D) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `non-States' 
     means--
       ``(i) the District of Columbia;
       ``(ii) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       ``(iii) Guam;
       ``(iv) American Samoa;
       ``(v) the United States Virgin Islands; and
       ``(vi) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 762. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
feasibility study on the inclusion of the Miami Circle in Biscayne 
National Park; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     Miami Circle Feasibility Study

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, several months ago, workers 
preparing land for development at the mouth of the Miami River began to 
notice a mysterious circular formation in the limestone bedrock that 
forms the foundation of the City of Miami. Further examination revealed 
that this site, where the river meets the bay, was utilized by the 
prehistoric Tequesta civilization for over 2,000 years, perhaps serving 
as an astronomical tool or as a cultural center for their complex 
maritime society. Floridians marveled at this clue to our past, and 
Miami is rediscovering and rejoicing in the Ancient Tequesta culture 
which, so many centuries before us, survived and flourished in an 
environment once dominated by sawgrass and gators, not condos and 
cruise ships.
  I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to save and study 
reminders of our heritage. So in order to save this particular 
landmark, I urge you to join me in asking the National Park Service to 
examine the feasibility of including the Miami Circle as a component of 
Biscayne National Park. This is an appropriate way of fulfilling our 
responsibility to preserve this historically significant Tequesta site. 
Since 1980, Biscayne National Park has stretched from Biscayne Bay near 
Miami to the northernmost Florida Keys, covering 180,000 acres, 95 
percent of which is water. The Park is already home to over one hundred 
known archaeological sites, the majority of which are submerged, as 
well as ten historic structures. Among those archaeological sites are 
several smaller, ``satellite'' Tequesta camps. Protection of the Miami 
Circle within the boundaries of the Park, in conjunction with these 
other camps, would allow for comprehensive site comparison, 
investigation and study. We must take seriously our responsibility as 
guardians of this cultural landmark and recognize that only through 
conservation and analysis will we be able to fully grasp the magnitude 
of this discovery.
  Discussions with experts in the field of historic preservation have 
made me aware that the challenges faced by the people of the State of 
Florida in their efforts to save the Circle are not unlike those 
encountered during other attempts to save threatened monuments to their 
heritage--be they tornado-damaged barns that housed soldiers during the 
Civil War or missing links in the Underground Railroad discovered in 
the course of site preparation for development. I'm working with 
experts in this field to identify ways that the federal government 
might become a partner in these types of emergency situations so that 
sites of cultural significance will not fall victim to natural 
occurrences or development. I hope to introduce legislation soon that 
will give Americans the opportunity to save historic landmarks that 
they have identified in their own communities.
  There is no Federal emergency fund or program to save the Miami 
Circle. However, the annexation of the 2.2 acre Miami Circle property 
into Biscayne National Park, if found to be appropriate in a 
feasibility study, will save the Miami Circle from bulldozers and 
cement pourers, will allow us to gain a greater understanding of the 
Tequesta culture, and will be a valuable asset to our National Parks 
System. We will not only be preserving a valuable piece

[[Page S3515]]

of history, but will also provide a fitting gateway to one of our 
Nation's newest National Parks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. 
        Helms):
  S.J. Res. 16. A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment 
to establish limited judicial terms of office; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH LIMITED JUDICIAL TERMS OF OFFICE

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the 
Term Limits for Judges Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. I first introduced this proposal in the 105th Congress, with 
Senators Shelby and Helms as co-sponsors. I am pleased that both of 
those distinguished colleagues are joining me again as original co-
sponsors.
  Mr. President, the Framers of our Constitution intended that the 
judicial branch created by Article III would have a limited role. In 
Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the judicial branch 
``will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the 
Constitution.'' Courts, wrote Hamilton, ``have neither force nor will 
but merely judgment'' and ``can take no active resolution whatever.'' 
Even as he advocated the ratification of the Constitution, however, 
Hamilton also issued a warning. ``The courts,'' he said, ``must declare 
the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will 
instead of judgment the consequence would equally be the substitution 
of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.''
  More than two hundred years after Alexander Hamilton issued his 
warning, it is abundantly clear that the abuse of judicial power that 
he feared has become a reality. In recent years, for example, activist 
judges have repeatedly abused their authority by blocking the 
implementation of entirely constitutional measures enacted through 
state ballot referenda simply because they disagree with the policy 
judgments of the voters. Activist judges have taken control or prisons 
and school districts. Activist judges have even ordered tax increases. 
Worst of all, activist judges have created new rules to protect 
criminal defendants that result in killers, rapists and other violent 
individuals being turned loose to continue preying on society. Former 
U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese estimates that over 100,000 criminal 
cases each year cannot be successfully prosecuted because of these 
court-created rules.
  Mr. President, judicial activism has become such a severe problem 
that former U.S. Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork has proposed that the 
Constitution should be amended to give the Congress the power to 
overturn Supreme Court decisions. I believe, however, that a better 
solution is a constitutional amendment providing term limits for 
judges.
  The Term Limits for Judges Amendment would put an end to life tenure 
for judges. Judges at all three levels of the Article III judiciary--
Supreme Court, Appeals Courts, and District Courts--would be nominated 
by the President and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
appointed for 10-year terms. After completing such a term, a judge 
would be eligible for reappointment, subject to Senate confirmation. 
Since under the Twenty-Second Amendment no person can be President for 
more than 10 consecutive years, no judge could be appointed twice by 
the same President. Finally, judges appointed before the Amendment 
takes effect would be protected by a ``grandfather'' clause.
  Mr. President, activist judges are routinely violating the separation 
of powers by usurping legislative and executive powers. This widespread 
abuse of judicial authority is constitutional in dimension and it is 
serious enough to warrant a constitutional response. Term limits for 
judges would establish a check on the power of activists judges. No 
longer could they abuse their authority with impunity. Under the Term 
Limits for Judges Amendment, judges who abuse their offices by imposing 
their own policy views instead of interpreting the laws in good faith 
could be passed over for new terms by the President or rejected for 
reappointment by the Senate. Moreover, the Term Limits for Judges 
Amendment would make the President and the Senate more accountable to 
the people for their judicial selections.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Term 
Limits for Judges Amendment printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 16

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States.


                              ``Article--

       ``The Chief Justice and the judges of both the Supreme 
     Court and the inferior courts shall hold their offices for 
     the term of ten years. They shall be eligible for nomination 
     and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for 
     appointment by the President to additional terms. This 
     article shall not apply to any Chief Justice or judge who was 
     appointed before it becomes operative.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S.J. Res. 17. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of 
war and subject to suspension by the Congress) that the total amount of 
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed 
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such 
fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product 
of the United States during the previous calendar year; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


             Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

 Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same 
amendment which I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th 
Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good 
economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to 
this idea because I believe that the most significant thing that the 
federal government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and 
future generations is to ensure that we have a balanced federal budget.
  Mr. President, our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great 
concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate 
within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . 
. there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the 
constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future 
day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this 
``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: 
``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by 
the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it 
among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider 
ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally 
bound to pay them ourselves.''
  Mr. President, I completely agree with these sentiments. History has 
shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have in fact saddled 
future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. 
Over the past 30 years, annual deficits became routine and the federal 
government built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment 
of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt 
shifting is morally wrong.
  Mr. President, some may find it strange that I am talking about the 
problems of budget deficits and the need for a balanced budget 
amendment at a time when the budget is actually in balance. However, I 
raise this issue now, as I have time and time again in the past, 
because of the seminal importance involved in establishing a permanent 
mechanism to ensure that our annual federal budget is always balanced.
  Mr. President, a permanently balanced budget would have a 
considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A 
balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving 
money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, 
credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment 
responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the federal government 
would put real money into the hands of hard working people. In all 
practical sense,

[[Page S3516]]

the effect of such fiscal responsibility on the part of the government 
would be the same as a significant tax cut for the American people. 
Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money 
would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would 
generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.
  More money in the pockets of Americans, more job creation by the 
economy, a simple step could make this reality--a balanced budget 
amendment.
  Furthermore, a balanced budget amendment would also provide the 
discipline to keep us on the course towards reducing our massive 
national debt. Currently, the federal government pays hundreds of 
billion of dollars in interest payments on the debt each year. This 
means we spend billions of dollars each year on exactly, nothing. At 
the end of the year we have nothing of substance to show for these 
expenditures. These expenditures do not provide better educations for 
our children, they do not make our nation safer, they do not further 
important medical research, they do not build new roads. They do 
nothing but pay the obligations created by the fiscal irresponsibility 
of those whose came earlier. In the end, we need to ensure that we 
continue on the road to a balanced budget so that we can end the 
wasteful practice of making interest payments on the deficit.
  However, Mr. President, opponents of a balanced budget amendment act 
like it is something extraordinary. In reality, a balanced budget 
amendment will only require the government to do what every American 
already has to do: balance their checkbook. It is simply a promise to 
the American people, and more importantly, to future generations of 
Americans, that the government will act responsibility.
  Mr. President, thankfully the budget is currently balanced. However, 
there are no guarantees that it will stay as such. We could see 
dramatic changes in economic conditions. The drain on the government 
caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomers may exceed expectations. 
Future leaders may fall pray to the ``general propensity . . . to shift 
the burden'' that Alexander Hamilton wrote about so long ago. We need 
to establish guarantees for future generations. The balanced budget 
amendment is the best such mechanism available.

                          ____________________